Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Information seeking behaviors and attitude to information among educational practitioners 1979

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1979_A2 M38.pdf
UBC_1979_A2 M38.pdf [ 7.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078358.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078358+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078358.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078358+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078358+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078358+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078358.ris

Full Text

INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDE TO INFORMATION AMONG EDUCATIONAL PRACTITIONERS by HELEN JOYCE CASTLEDEN MATHESON B. A., U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan., 1949 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Education, Department of Reading) We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard T h e s i s S u p e r v i s o r UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1979. (D Helen Joyce Matheson, 1979 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of this thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Depa rtment The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 6 ABSTRACT - T h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e s the p e r s o n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the users of i n f o r m a t i o n ; t h e i r purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n , the sources they use, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources that are important t o them, and the problems they encounter i n seeking or using e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , an a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e , developed to measure users* a f f e c t i v e response to i n f o r m a t i o n , was analyzed to determine the extent to which i t r e f l e c t e d a •hierarchy* of growth and development. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed, p i l o t t e s t e d , r e v i s e d and mailed to a random sample of t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel i n the s c h o o l s and d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s of education i n the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. Responses from 1,037 educators were analyzed* P o s i t i o n and a t t i t u d e both had strong c o r r e l a t i o n s with e x p e r i e n c e , e d u c a t i o n , and i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n . Sense o f i s o l a t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o p o s i t i o n or a t t i t u d e , but d i d d i f f e r from r e g i o n to r e g i o n , although not on a simple geographic d i s t a n c e factor.. The f i f t e e n - i t e m s c a l e designed to measure a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n was analyzed t o determine whether a ' h i e r a r c h y ' of development and growth of a t t i t u d e c o u l d be confirmed. Although a f i v e - l e v e l taxonomy was not confirmed, a l e s s c o n c i s e , t h r e e - l e v e l h i e r a r c h y was confirmed. F i f t e e n p o s s i b l e purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n were r a t e d as to t h e i r importance t o respondents. These r a t i n g s were used as a ba s i s f o r grouping the nine p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s i n t o f o u r c l a s s e s . In a d d i t i o n they were analyzed t o i d e n t i f y the e f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Purposes. A s i g n i f i c a n t and complex r e l a t i o n s h i p was r e v e a l e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s ; T h i r t e e n sources of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n were r a t e d on freguency of use. The r e s u l t s of analyses i n d i c a t e t h a t d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n groups do use d i f f e r e n t s o u r ces when they seek i n f o r m a t i o n ; I t a l s o showed that while the use of n e a r l y a l l sources i n c r e a s e s with post-graduate u n i v e r s i t y study, t h e r e i s l i t t l e or no d i f f e r e n c e between those who have no u n i v e r s i t y degree and those who have no more than a b a c h e l o r ' s degree; For only one source, " e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s " , d i d freguency of use change with i n c r e a s e d years of experience; but the r a t e o f d i s s e m i n a t i o n r e p o r t e d and the t o t a l score.on the a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e were both d i r e c t l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o frequency of use of sources. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses of sources extended and i l l u m i n a t e d these b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s : A t t i t u d e , d i s s e m i n a t i o n and p o s i t i o n (measured using t h r e e planned c o n t r a s t s ) were s i g n i f i c a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g the v a r i a n c e of n e a r l y a l l s o u rces. Experience, education and i s o l a t i o n were. each s i g n i f i c a n t f o r r e l a t i v e l y fewer sources, and at a lower l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . i v . E leven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n f o r m a t i o n sources were r a t e d by respondents a c c o r d i n g t o importance. A l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were considered important by a l l groups ( a l l means >2.5, the midpoint of the s c a l e ) . L e a s t important were " i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " and " p r o v i d e s access without i n v o l v i n g o t h e r s " ; most important were " i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e " and " i s l i k e l y to have the i n f o r m a t i o n I need". A t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n was h i g h l y r e l a t e d t o importance of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Ten problems were rated as t o the d i f f i c u l t y they cause. Only one, " f i n d i n g time to look f o r or read i n f o r m a t i o n " had a mean g r e a t e r than 2.5, the midpoint on the s c a l e * T h i s suggests that respondents d i d not see most of the problems as b a r r i e r s t o g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n * P o s i t i o n was not a major f a c t o r i n e x p l a i n i n g the v a r i a n c e of problems, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t problems are i d i o s y n c r a t i c , r e l a t e d to the l e v e l of use of sources or to p e r s o n a l s t y l e of users, but not to p o s i t i o n category. The f i n a l item on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was an open-ended question a s k i n g f o r a personal statement of an " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n system, The 673 responses were t a b u l a t e d and reported as f r e q u e n c i e s , and 27 c a t e g o r i e s were developed. The most commonly c i t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n systems were 1) computer r e t r i e v a l and/or ERIC, 2) improved d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s , 3) improved s c h o o l l i b r a r i e s , 4) time to seek and use i n f o r m a t i o n , 5) courses and workshops, and 6) i n f o r m a t i o n personnel i n the d i s t r i c t . V . Table Of Contents L i s t of Tables v i I . INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH . .... i 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Information Management . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . l \ . . . . . . . . . . 2 Info r m a t i o n Users i n Education ...... ............. i . 5 A t t i t u d e t o Information ...............10 Summary . . . . . i . . . ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . ^.... i.. ..11 I I . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM i ; . . . i . . 13 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study i i . .,1.. 14 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms ............................15 Overview 15 I I I . PROCEDURES ^..J.................................... M Development o f the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 17 Sampling , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . i i.,20 D e s c r i p t i o n of the F i n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .............. 24 S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology . i 3 0 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . » . . . . . . . , , i . ; . 3 3 D e s c r i p t i o n of the User i . . . . i . . i . i . . 3 3 I n f ormation Seeking Behavior ........................ 51 Your " i d e a l " System i . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Summary , . . , * , i 74 V, SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ., 77 Summary ......... ..... .. .,-.....................77 L i m i t a t i o n s . . i . . .;.................................79 C o n c l u s i o n s ....81 Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r study ..............;;... 94 VI. REFERENCE NOTES . .\i i ,i .......... 9 8 VI I . BIBLIOGRAPHY . ... ... . . . .... ... 99 V I I I . APPENDICES i . ... . i ......... . ... ..... L ... 107 A. P i l o t Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . i . i . 107 B. F i n a l Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ....................... 122 C. Krathwohl Stage D e f i n i t i o n s and Items';.......... 135 D. L e t t e r to Respondents .......................... 138 E. L e t t e r to Superintendents .......................140 F. P o s t c a r d Reminder 142 G. C o r r e l a t i o n s Between and Among User C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Sources 144 H. M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Tables f o r A l l Sources ..,,,.,,,,..,..,.147 I. Form J 155 vi,. L i s t - Of Tables Table 1 Sampling Frame and Returns 23 Table 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents over P r o f e s s i o n a l P o s i t i o n s ,3U Table 3 R e s u l t s of C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s of P o s i t i o n s 1 i . . . . ; 3 5 Table 4 Summary of A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : A t t i t u d e as a Fu n c t i o n of P o s i t i o n C l u s t e r ................ 36 Table 5 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Experience • . i ' and P o s i t i o n .. i............... .37 Table 6 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of I s o l a t i o n and P o s i t i o n 38 Table 7 Sense of I s o l a t i o n f o r Each of Twelve E d u c a t i o n a l Regions ........................ 39 Table 8 Summary o f A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Sense o f I s o l a t i o n as a F u n c t i o n of Region ............. 40 Table 9 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Education and P o s i t i o n . . „ * , , , , .......... 42 Table Cl0 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Dis s e m i n a t i o n • ••••><< and P o s i t i o n .................. U3 Table ill R e s u l t s of Guttman A n a l y s i s o f A t t i t u d e items ...,46 Table 12 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e 46 Table 13 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Experience and A t t i t u d e ... ... 48 Table 14 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of I s o l a t i o n ? • 1 and A t t i t u d e ........ .,; , ; ...49 Table 15 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Education and A t t i t u d e . . . . j 50 Table 16 Cross t a b u l a t i o n o f Dis s e m i n a t i o n and A t t i t u d e . , ; . . . . . u ; . . . . . 51 Table 17 Purposes: Means and Rank Order ................... 52 Table 18 E f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Purposes 1....... i i . 53 Table 19 Sources: Means and Rank Orders .54 Table 20 E f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Sources ................... 56 Table 21 E f f e c t s of Education on Sources ..................58 Table 22 E f f e c t s o f Dissemination on Sources .,.,. '. '. ..., ,: . i 60 Table 23 E f f e c t s of A t t i t u d e on Sources , ...,.,...,..,,.61 Table 24 M u l t i p l e Regression'Summary Table .... , , i . . . . . i ... .64 Table 25 Rotated F a c t o r Loadings of Sources ....,i..........66 Table 26 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Means and Rank Orders ..,,,,,,,.,68 Table 27 E f f e c t s of A t t i t u d e oh C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . . . . . i . 7 0 Table 28 Problems: Means'and Rank Order ..„..;....... i 7 1 . Table 29 Responses to Your " i d e a l " System ................. 73 F i g u r e F i g u r e 1. B r i t i s h Columbia School D i s t r i c t s by Regions ..................... . 41 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT There are many who were e s s e n t i a l t o the completion of t h i s task* My thanks go: To my parents who s u p p l i e d the genes and the example t h a t made i t a p o s i b i l i t y ; To Dr. E, G. Summers who i n t r o d u c e d me t o b i g , l i t t l e and i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and who guided much of the venture; To my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and support, and a s p e c i a l thanks to Dr. E. Conry who taught me how to measure and who c a r e f u l l y oversaw the design and the f i n a l stages of the study; To a l l the f a c u l t y and graduate students who shared and cared; And, most of a l l , to my husband Don, and our s i x c h i l d r e n , who not onl y thought t h a t I c o u l d , but b e l i e v e d t h a t I should. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH I n t r o d u c t i o n The e x p o n e n t i a l growth of s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e has been w e l l documented (Cuadra, 1966; Borko, 1967; Weisman, 1972; Kochen, 1969). In 1963 P r i c e wrote, " I t i s reasonable to suppose th a t the volume of s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e p u b l i s h e d during the next decade w i l l roughly equal t h a t having been produced from the beginning o f s c i e n c e t o i t s present time" (p. 37).. I t was estimated t h a t d u r i n g every s i x t y seconds of the twenty-four hour day, more than two thousand pages of t e x t were p u b l i s h e d throughout the world (Shera, 1966). In 1969 the Science C o u n c i l of Canada r e p o r t e d : Since the 17th cent u r y , there has been an annual growth i n s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e of 7 percent-- a growth f a c t o r of 10 f o r each h a l f century. T h i s year, 3,000,000 a r t i c l e s i n some 35,000 j o u r n a l s are being p u b l i s h e d i n more than 60 languages ( S p e c i a l Study No. 8, p. 3 ) . T h i s tremendous growth i n p u b l i s h e d m a t e r i a l s was o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as an " i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l o s i o n " . However, L i c k l i d e r (1966) suggested t h a t "what i s happening i n s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l communication i s more c l o s e l y analagous t o a f l o o d than an e x p l o s i o n " (p.1044). Whatever i t was named, the e f f e c t s of the i n c r e a s e i n p r i n t i n f o r m a t i o n were not a l l p o s i t i v e . While the growth r e f l e c t e d a str o n g and a c t i v e s c i e n t i f i c community conducting r e s e a r c h and r e p o r t i n g i t s f i n d i n g s , i t 2 a l s o posed the problem of a s s i m i l a t i o n f o r t h o s e : i n the f i e l d . L i c k l i d e r (1966) s a i d , " I t i s our unique experience to l i v e and work throuqh the p e r i o d i n which i n d i v i d u a l mastery of a f i e l d t u r n s from p o s s i b l e t o impossible"(p.1045). Almost ten years l a t e r , L i c k l i d e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n was confirmed by Borko and B e r n i e r (1975): "The l i t e r a t u r e has now expanded to such an extent t h a t every person i s e x p e r i e n c i n q d i f f i c u l t y i n keepinq up with h i s own f i e l d of i n t e r e s t " (p.4). When "every person" i s havinq t r o u b l e keepinq c u r r e n t with h i s own s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d , then the methods of i n f o r m a t i o n production* manaqement, and d i s s e m i n a t i o n must be examined, evaluated and improved. Information Manaqement In response to t h i s e x p o n e n t i a l qrowth of r e p o r t e d s c i e n t i f i c f i n d i n g s , a new s c i e n c e was developed, the s c i e n c e of i n f o r m a t i o n , or as i t became known, Information S c i e n c e . Information Science was d e f i n e d by Borko (1968) as An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y s c i e n c e t h a t i n v e s t i g a t e s the p r o p e r t i e s and behaviors of i n f o r m a t i o n , the f o r c e s t h a t govern the flow and use of i n f o r m a t i o n , and the t e c h n i g u e s , both manual and mechanical, of p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r optimal storage, r e t r i e v a l , and d i s s e m i n a t i o n (p.5), I n 1966 the f i r s t Annual Beview of Information Science and Technology (ABIST) was p u b l i s h e d . At t h a t time the f i e l d of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e was s t i l l undefined. Views of the new s c i e n c e i n c l u d e d an e l a b o r a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l l i b r a r y p r a c t i c e , machine manipulation of l i n g u i s t i c or numeric data, p r o c e s s i n g 3 or a n a l y z i n g s c i e n t i f i c documents, and a means of i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication. The annual review was designed to encourage intercommunication between the v a r i o u s f a c t i o n s and to a c c e l e r a t e f u s i o n o f the p a r t s i n t o a u n i f i e d f i e l d o f s c i e n t i f i c enquiry (Cuadra, 1966). As i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n t i s t s became more p r o f i c i e n t a t c o l l e c t i n g and p r o c e s s i n g the v a s t q u a n t i t i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n beinq produced (Bourne, 1962; L i p e t z , 1966; Murdock S L i s t o n , 1967; Science C o u n c i l of Canada, Report #6, 1969; S a r a c e v i c , 1971; Weinberg, 1971), they became aware t h a t merely c a t e g o r i z i n g m a t e r i a l and making i t a v a i l a b l e d i d not s o l v e the i n f o r m a t i o n problems of the s c i e n t i s t s , t e c h n i c i a n s or p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n the v a r i o u s f i e l d s of n a t u r a l or s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . In s p i t e of t h e i r e f f o r t s , t h e r e , was s t i l l a gap between i n f o r m a t i o n production and i n f o r m a t i o n use. One example of t h i s phenomenon was the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and development of the E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center (EEIC) f o r the f i e l d of education. Relevant documents were l o c a t e d , l a b e l l e d by d e s c r i p t o r s , a b s t r a c t e d and entered i n t o a computer system,. The designers of ERIC, r e c o g n i z i n g the need f o r s y n t h e s i s , c o l l e c t i o n s of r e l a t e d documents, annotated b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , and indexes, d i r e c t e d the c l e a r i n g h o u s e personnel to produce new documents t h a t would b r i n g together the i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i f i c t o p i c s . P a i s l e y (1971) commended the ERIC system f o r i t s e f f o r t s , but noted t h a t "even knowledge of ERIC's e x i s t e n c e d e c l i n e s 4 ab r u p t l y as we move from 'cosmopolite 8 r e s e a r c h e r s and p r o f e s s o r s t o ' l o c a l i t e ' a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and teachers"(p.403). In the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s concern f o r the user, the i n d i v i d u a l who needs the i n f o r m a t i o n f o r h i s work, was expressed i n the number of s t u d i e s t h a t were concerned with user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and behavior (Herner, 1954; Menzel,1960). In the f i r s t volume of ABIST, Menzel (1966) s a i d . The way i n which s c i e n t i s t s and engineers make use of the i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s at t h e i r d i s p o s a l , the demands they put t o them, the s a t i s f a c t i o n achieved by t h e i r e f f o r t s , and the r e s u l t a n t impact on t h e i r f u r t h e r work a r e among the items of knowledge which are necessary f o r the wise planning of i n f o r m a t i o n systems and p o l i c y (p*41). He noted t h a t "user s t u d i e s " were j u s t beginning to emerge as v a l u a b l e sources of f a c t s about user a c t i v i t i e s * Two years l a t e r , P a i s l e y (1968) c o u l d r e p o r t "a s i g n i f i c a n t l i t e r a t u r e " of i n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses (p,* 1) . He r e c o g n i z e d evidence of "mutual educ a t i o n and accommodation" between i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e i n developing t h i s l i t e r a t u r e * Martyn (1974) provided a h i s t o r y of the development of user s t u d i e s . He noted t h r e e new tren d s i n the purposes o f user s t u d i e s : (1) to design or r e - t a i l o r i n f o r m a t i o n systems, (2) to i n v e s t i g a t e i n f o r m a t i o n flow i n areas other than s c i e n c e and technology and (3) to d i s c o v e r the r o l e of i n f o r m a t i o n a t d i f f e r e n t stages of r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s . 5 4s i n t e r e s t i n users grew, a r t i c l e s and books reviewed past s t u d i e s and d i s c u s s e d new and b e t t e r methods of i n v e s t i g a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n users and t h e i r needs (Herner, 1954; Ber n a l , 1960; Borko, 1962; Rees, 1963; Parker & P a i s l e y , 1966; Wood, 1969, 1970; B e r n i e r , 1971; Kugel,1974) * The importance of connecting the person who needed i n f o r m a t i o n t o the sources where i t could be. found was recognized i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e f i e l d o f education. I n f o r m a t i o n Users i n Education The d i s s e m i n a t o r s and users of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and h a b i t s , have been i n v e s t i g a t e d by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s (Chorness, Rittenhouse & Heald, 1968, 1969; Rittenhouse, 1970; Summers, 1972, 1974). Havelock (1967, 1969) i d e n t i f i e d e i g h t separate c l a s s e s of " l i n k e r s " , i n d i v i d u a l s who n a t u r a l l y tend to f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n and l i n k i t t o the people who need i t : When these l i n k e r s a c t i n d i v i d u a l l y without support or fo r m a l i z e d p o s i t i o n , t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s r e s t r i c t e d . Havelock suggested t h a t there should be a recognized r o l e w i t h i n an e s t a b l i s h e d o r g a n i z a t i o n so t h a t a systematized l i n k c o u l d be developed. In the United Kingdom i n 1967, an I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o Information Requirements of S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t s (INFROSS) was undertaken (Line, 1969, 1971; B r i t t a i n , 1970). One s e c t i o n o f t h i s i n v e s t i q a t i o n was concerned with r e s e a r c h e r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n education; The teach e r s shared with other s o c i a l s c i e n c e p r a c t i t i o n e r s shortage o f time and l a c k o f 6 awareness of i n f o r m a t i o n t o o l s : In c o n t r a s t to p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n other f i e l d s , however* the r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t t e a c h e r s , where they were not p l a i n a p a t h e t i c showed some s u s p i c i o n , even h o s t i l i t y , towards e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h ; they saw the need to keep up with the s u b j e c t s they taught* not with e d u c a t i o n a l theory, r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e , Education was to them something one d i d , not something one found out about (Line, 1971, p,;429). L i n e reported t h a t , from the responses, the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y concerns r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a t i o n * I t i s of l i t t l e use t o convey 'raw' research to the p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n the form of j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s and r e s e a r c h papers; what they need i s c a r e f u l l y prepared and temptingly presented packages, summarizing and e v a l u a t i n g r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s t h a t are s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e i r p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s to be c l e a r * . . . Since p r a c t i t i o n e r s have an even stronger p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n f o r m a l communication than r e s e a r c h e r s , . . t h o u g h t should a l s o be given to developing channels of i n f o r m a l communication, whether these be c o n t a c t s with l o c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher e d u c a t i o n , or a c c e s s to a c e n t r a l or r e g i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t r e (p,429) .* L i n e s t r o n g l y recommended the. use: of p e r s o n a l i n t e r m e d i a r i e s , n o t i n g .that, p r e v i o u s attempts to s i m p l i f y i n f o r m a t i o n t o o l s t o make them usable had l e s s e n e d t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , while attempts t o educate p r a c t i t i o n e r s to use e x i s t i n g systems had not been very s u c c e s s f u l (p.430), P a i s l e y (1972) reported on "Developing a Sensing Network f o r Information Needs i n Education". T h i s study t e s t e d f i v e s eparate methods of i n f o r m a t i o n needs assessment: (1) a t h i r t e e n s t a t e survey of i n f o r m a t i o n needs; (2) a follow-up of educators who had requested i n f o r m a t i o n from an EPIC c l e a r i n g h o u s e or 7 l o c a l i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r ; (3) an " i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s " s t u d y i n which e x p e r t p e r s o n n e l attempted t o p r o j e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n needs o f t h e i r c l i e n t s ; (4) a t o l l - f r e e " h o t l i n e " s t u d y i n which e d u c a t o r s were i n v i t e d t o phone f o r needed i n f o r m a t i o n ; and (5) an e d u c a t i o n a l s e r i a l s s tudy i n which the t o p i c s coming i n t o the C u r r e n t Index t o J o u r n a l s i n E d u c a t i o n (CUE) were' t a b u l a t e d a c r o s s f o u r t i m e p e r i o d s . T h i s study f o c u s s e d on the c o n t e n t which u s e r s demanded and on the methods of d e l i v e r y t h e y p r e f e r r e d , but d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e u s e r b e h a v i o r i n s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ; As a r e s u l t of the s t u d y , P a i s l e y endorsed t h e survey as t h e s i n g l e b e s t method of i d e n t i f y i n g u s e r needs. To i n v e s t i g a t e the method of d e l i v e r y o f i n f o r m a t i o n , f i v e c h o i c e s were p r e s e n t e d * " P r a c t i c a l , how-to g u i d a n c e " was most p o p u l a r over a l l groups, w i t h "Summaries of r e s e a r c h " t h e p r e f e r r e d method among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s u p e r v i s o r s ; A l l groups showed moderate i n t e r e s t i n "News and p r o f e s s i o n a l c u r r e n t awareness" and "Case s t u d i e s , d e s c r i p t i o n s of p r a c t i c e " , but very l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n " O r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h p a p e r s " ( P a i s l e y , 1972); P a i s l e y p o i n t s out t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n needs d a t a do n o t i m m e d i a t e l y r e s u l t i n p o l i c y changes. He compared i n f o r m a t i o n needs data t o b u s i n e s s i n d i c a t o r s , as p r e r e q u i s i t e t o p o l i c y change, b u t not a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t i n q i n chanqe* He c o n t i n u e d : "As measurement of i n f o r m a t i o n needs becomes more s p e c i f i c new d e l i v e r y systems w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o match need s p e c i f i c i t y w i t h response s p e c i f i c i t y " (1972,p. 108). Four y e a r s l a t e r . Hood and B l a c k w e l l (1976), a t t h e Far 8 West Laboratory f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development, pu b l i s h e d t h e i r " E d u c a t i o n a l Information Market Study". T h i s market a n a l y s i s of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e needs was conceived as "an antecedent to determining the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r developing an i n f o r m a t i o n system more r e s p o n s i v e to the needs of education users" ( V o l I, p. I I - 1 ) . The:research team hoped to d i s c o v e r homogeneous sub-groups of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n users; " I f s i g n i f i c a n t , meaningful p a t t e r n s can be e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e would be at l e a s t a beginning b a s i s f o r d e s i g n i n g or r e d e s i g n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n products and s e r v i c e s i n terms of needs of d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of u s e r s " (Vol I, p. 1-3) . An Education Information Ose Model was developed which p o s i t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between seven v a r i a b l e s : c o n t e x t ( l o c a t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , p o s i t i o n (type, work a c t i v i t i e s ) , person (age, s e x ) , i n f o r m a t i o n resources ( p e r c e p t i o n of i s o l a t i o n ) ; s o c i o r a e t r i c i n f o r m a t i o n exchange (give t o , come to) , purposes (type, t a s k ) , and sources used and/or p r e f e r r e d . The r e s u l t s of the study i n d i c a t e d t h a t there are many s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among e d u c a t i o n a l sub-audiences, and that the p a t t e r n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n use have m u l t i p l e determinants. Hood and B l a c k w e l l concluded t h a t "the e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n market i s q u i t e e a s i l y segmented by work r o l e s " (Vol I I , p. 1-19), and t h a t " t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n can be used to improve e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n systems and to design new products and s e r v i c e s t a r g e t e d to the needs and p r e f e r e n c e s of v a r i o u s sub- audiences " (Vol I I , p, 1-19). 9 I n v e s t i g a t i n g the demographics and the p r o f e s s i o n a l environment of users can give some i n s i g h t i n t o which of these f a c t o r s , s i n g l y or i n combination, i n f l u e n c e ; t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sources used by e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s . There i s another f a c e t of the user t h a t might a l s o i n f l u e n c e the sources used; King and Palmour (1974) suggest t h a t the " p s y c h o l o g i c a l make-up, such as p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a t t i t u d e s , a b i l i t y to l e a r n and change" might be an i n f o r m a t i v e way t o c l a s s i f y users; Martyn (1974) suggested t h a t new s t u d i e s "...should add to our knowledge or our understanding of user a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r " (p. 5), Hood and B l a c k w e l l (1976), i n t h e i r summary of r e s u l t s o f the E d u c a t i o n a l Information Market Study, s a i d : There are d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n use t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e people, and .-.,; people who tend to use s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s are only sometimes i n the same types of jobs or p o s i t i o n s . Thus, p a t t e r n s of purposes and sources may be as much p e r s o n a l s t y l e s as they are requirements or consequences of p a r t i c u l a r jobs or p o s i t i o n s ; . . . A l t h o u g h these f i n d i n q s o f d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s of i n f o r m a t i o n use t h a t are only p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o job type are extremely s p e c u l a t i v e at t h i s p o i n t * they are i n t e r e s t i n q enouqh t o warrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i q a t i o n (Vol I , p. 1-5). I t was to i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r t h i s area of " p e r s o n a l s t y l e s " t h a t the A t t i t u d e t o Information s c a l e was developed f o r t h i s study. I t i s hypothesized t h a t a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the ch o i c e of sources used. 10 A t t i t u d e to Information The measurement of a t t i t u d e s i n any f i e l d i s a s u b t l e and complex task; S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s have been s t u d y i n g a t t i t u d e s f o r many years. T r i a n d i s (1971) s y n t h e s i z e d the wide range o f d e f i n i t i o n s and d i r e c t i o n s and o f f e r e d a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e which i n c l u d e d three components: c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l ; The c o g n i t i v e component i s made up of the i d e a s b u i l t i n t o the a t t i t u d e through a person's own p e r c e p t i o n of the world; the a f f e c t i v e component i s the emotional component, how a person " f e e l s " about an i s s u e ; and the b e h a v i o r a l component i s a measure of the o v e r t a c t i o n s and h a b i t s of the i n d i v i d u a l * A l l of these components must be i n c l u d e d i f a t t i t u d e i s to be measured completely. Krathwohl (1964) and h i s a s s o c i a t e s looked at the a c q u i s i t i o n of an a t t i t u d e as a slow, s u b t l e process q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the process of a c q u i r i n q a concept. A f t e r a l o n g and c a r e f u l examination of " i n t e r e s t s , a t t i t u d e s , a p p r e c i a t i o n s , values and emotional s e t s or b i a s e s " , they produced A Taxonomy o f E d u c a t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s : the A f f e c t i v e Domain. T h i s taxonomy o f f e r s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the stages of a t t i t u d e development based on a thorough study of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h : 1.0 R e c e i v i n g (attending) 1.1 Awareness 1.2 W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e c e i v e 1.3 C o n t r o l l e d or s e l e c t e d a t t e n t i o n 2, 0 Responding 2.1 Acquiescence i n respondinq 2.2 W i l l i n g n e s s t o respond 2.3 S a t i s f a c t i o n i n responding 11 3.0 V a l u i n g 3.1 Acceptance of a value 3.2 P r e f e r e n c e f o r a value 3.3 Commitment (co n v i c t i o n ) 4,10 O r g a n i z a t i o n 4.1 C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of an idea 4.2 O r g a n i z a t i o n of a value system 5.0 C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n by a value 5.1 G e n e r a l i z e d set 5.2 C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . There have been some attempts to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e and use the a f f e c t i v e taxonomy i n education. A r e c e n t study (Mikulecky, 1976) p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l model. The M u l t i - s t a g e B e h a v i o r a l Heading A t t i t u d e Measure (MBEAM) developed f o r the study was designed t o take i n t o account both T r i a n d i s ' three components o f a t t i t u d e and Krathwohl 8s developmental process of a c g u i r i n g an attitude,; Items of the measure d e s c r i b e d s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l s i t u a t i o n s which r e f l e c t e d the f i v e stages of Krathwohl's taxonomy* Included w i t h i n the items were r e f e r e n c e s to i d e a s , f e e l i n g s and v a l u e s . Respondents r e a c t e d to these r e a l i s t i c s i t u a t i o n s , along a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e , as being "very l i k e me" or "very u n l i k e me". The use of Krathwohl's taxonomy as a framework f o r d eveloping a t t i t u d e items seemed a p p r o p r i a t e : f o r d e s i g n i n g an a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n measure f o r t h i s study. Summary The r e c e n t growth i n p u b l i s h e d l i t e r a t u r e l e d to the development of a new s c i e n c e , Information Science, to i n v e s t i g a t e and manage the flow and use of i n f o r m a t i o n . As the c o n t r o l of i n f o r m a t i o n sources became more s o p h i s t i c a t e d , concern grew f o r the problem of l i n k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to the u l t i m a t e user* 12 The i n f o r m a t i o n user i n the n a t u r a l and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s was s t u d i e d to i d e n t i f y h i s needs and habits,. In the f i e l d o f education, Havelock (1967) examined the 1 n a t u r a l l i n k e r s and advocated an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e f o r them,. The INFROSS study r e v e a l e d p r a c t i t i o n e r a t t i t u d e s to i n f o r m a t i o n . In response to those negative r e a c t i o n s , Line (1971) recommeded new ways of packaging r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s and new methods of communication, e s p e c i a l l y the use of a human i n t e r m e d i a r y . The E d u c a t i o n a l Information Market Study (Hood & B l a c k w e l l , 1976) i n v e s t i g a t e d a number of p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s and r e l a t e d them to the sources u s e d / p r e f e r r e d by educators a t the s c h o o l , d i s t r i c t and s t a t e l e v e l s . Other r e s e a r c h e r s d i s c u s s i n g user s t u d i e s suggested i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the a t t i t u d e s and p e r s o n a l s t y l e s of the users of i n f o r m a t i o n (King S Palmour, 1974; Martyn, 1974),. Mikulecky (1976) provided a model of a t t i t u d e s c a l e development th a t can be u s e f u l i n producing a measure. of a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n ,* I f " i n f o r m a t i o n i s the e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t i n d e c i s i o n - making" (Kochen, 1974), then i n f o r m a t i o n must be made a v a i l a b l e to the decision-makers i n education* How to do t h i s e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y i s a major problem i n education today, 13 CHAPTER I I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem addressed by t h i s study i s t h a t of improving l i n k a g e s between i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n the l i t e r a t u r e of education and those educators i n the f i e l d who need i t f o r decision-making., The l i t e r a t u r e review has i n d i c a t e d that knowledge about the user, h i s i n f o r m a t i o n needs, h i s present i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g behaviours (and the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e them), and h i s a t t i t u d e s i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the design or r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n systems. The s p e c i f i c purposes of t h i s study a re: 1* To develop a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o measure: (a) The p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s of p o s i t i o n , years o f exp e r i e n c e , sense of i s o l a t i o n , l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , and i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n ; (b) The p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r of a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n ; and (c) The purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n , the sources used, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources t h a t i n f l u e n c e . t h e i r use, and the problems encountered i n seeking and using i n f o r m a t i o n sources. 14 2. To i n v e s t i g a t e the extent to which p r o f e s s i o n a l , personal and p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e to each other and i n f l u e n c e the choice of sources used. 3, To determine the extent to which the a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e r e f l e c t s a ' hierarchy 1 1 of a t t i t u d e development and growth* S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study The q u e s t i o n n a i r e employed i n t h i s study w i l l p r o v i d e a knowledge base f o r the development or improvement of connections between i n f o r m a t i o n and educators. Used i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a content needs survey, i t can i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c c ontent r e q u i r e d by the educators being surveyed and the methods of d i s s e m i n a t i o n they p r e f e r * G i v i n g the user the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t he wants, i n the form he wants i t , would i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y o f t r a n s f e r r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from the l i t e r a t u r e to the d e c i s i o n - maker. A n a l y s i s o f the a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s e c t i o n w i l l i l l u m i n a t e the present a t t i t u d e s of the respondents and w i l l p r o v i d e data on the v a l i d i t y of Krathwohl's taxonomy as a conceptual framework f o r d e s i g n i n g s c a l e s to measure a t t i t u d e . 15 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms The f o l l o w i n g terms are used throughout t h i s study; 1- iS£.Q£ffia.£i-Qfl' f a c t s , data or statements of thought t h a t can be communicated or used. 2. Knowledge,. Information t h a t has been processed by the user. -3- Pser. A person who a c q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n i n order to use i t i n decision-making. 4. A t t i t u d e to Information. Measurement of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a f f e c t i v e response t© e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n along a s c a l e t h a t goes from mere awareness through responding, v a l u i n g and u l t i m a t e l y t o a s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to the concept. 5. Sense of I s o l a t i o n . The f e e l i n g of being i s o l a t e d from the e d u c a t i b n a l i n f o r m a t i o n sources the respondent would l i k e to use* 6* Sources of I n f o r m a t i o n . P l a c e s , people or m a t e r i a l s to which respondents go t o get the i n f o r m a t i o n they need. Overview The background of the problem, the r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e , a statement of the problem and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , and d e f i n i t i o n s of key terms have been given i n the:the f i r s t two c h a p t e r s . 1 6 Chapter I I I w i l l i n t r o d u c e the procedures of the study. I t w i l l d e s c r i b e the development of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n c l u d i n g the p i l o t study and i t s i n f l u e n c e on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the sampling, the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the. s t a t i s t i c a l methodology t h a t w i l l be used. Chapter IV g i v e s the a n a l y s e s and r e s u l t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Chapter V w i l l d i s c u s s the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the study, the l i m i t a t i o n s , recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h and a f i n a l summary o f the study; CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURES To i n v e s t i g a t e the f a c t o r s - ^ - p r o f e s s i o n a l , personal and p s y c h o l o g i c a l — t h a t i n f l u e n c e e d u c a t o r s 1 c h o i c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n sources used, a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed and administered to a sample of educators a c r o s s the pr o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia. This chapter d e s c r i b e s the development of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the sampling procedures and the data analyses used i n the study* Development of the Que s t i o n n a i r e : T h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the development of t h e : q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d i n g the p i l o t study and i t s i n f l u e n c e * A l a t e r s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the r e v i s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e with s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o each o f the eleven s e c t i o n s . A copy of the p i l o t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s i n c l u d e d as Appendix A; the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e appears i n Appendix B* Ti§ £ilot Study; In June, 1977, an i n i t i a l form o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i s t r i b u t e d i n a p i l o t study t o three elementary s c h o o l s and two j u n i o r high s c h o o l s i n Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia. E i g h t y - t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were returned from a p o s s i b l e 138 teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , a response r a t e of 60. l % i Analyses of those r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d where chanqes should be made to improve the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The Market Study by Hood and B l a c k w e l l (1976) served as a p a r t i a l model f o r desiqn and content of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . However, many d e l e t i o n s , changes and a d d i t i o n s were i n t r o d u c e d so t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was more s u i t a b l e f o r 18 the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , the Canadian l o c a t i o n , the s i z e of study planned and the d i f f e r e n c e i n emphasis between the two s t u d i e s * As a r e s u l t of the a n a l y s e s of the p i l o t study data, s e v e r a l changes were made i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e * The s e c t i o n oh work a c t i v i t i e s , which asked the respondent t o i n d i c a t e the percentage of work time spent a t each of 14 work a c t i v i t i e s , was d e l e t e d from the study. Besponses to t h i s item i n the p i l o t study were e r r a t i c ( s e v e r a l r e p o r t e d three or more a c t i v i t i e s , each of which used more than 60% of t h e i r t i m e ) , and the r e s u l t s obtained d i d not r e v e a l new or u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n * For these reasons t h i s item does not appear i n the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Sense of i s o l a t i o n was i n v e s t i q a t e d with a s e c t i o n r e q u e s t i n g respondents' s e l f - r e p o r t s of t h e i r f e e l i n q s of i s o l a t i o n from the i n f o r m a t i o n sources they would l i k e to use. Besponses to t h i s item i n the p i l o t study showed l i t t l e v a r i a n c e , s i n c e a l l the s u b j e c t s were l o c a t e d i n a s i n q l e urban d i s t r i c t a d j a c e n t to the c i t y of Vancouver. T h i s s e c t i o n was r e t a i n e d because the province-wide d i s t r i b u t i o n should r e s u l t i n q r e a t e r v a r i a n c e and give a c l e a r e r i n d i c a t i o n of whether sense of i s o l a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o qeoqraphic d i s t a n c e . The a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n s e c t i o n was desiqned to measure respondents' a t t i t u d e s to the concept of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and to determine:whether a h i e r a r c h y of a t t i t u d e development d i d e x i s t , as suggested by Krathwohl (1964) and Mikulecky (1976). The e x i s t e n c e of t h a t h i e r a r c h y was p a r t l y confirmed i n the p i l o t study, but s e v e r a l items d i d not seem to t 19 r e f l e c t the stages of the taxonomy they were designed to measure. These items were r e w r i t t e n to represent the a p p r o p r i a t e stages more p r e c i s e l y ; At the same time, the t o t a l score on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e proved to be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t e of the rep o r t e d use of eleven of the f o u r t e e n sources, i n a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . The s e c t i o n concerned with purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n was i n c l u d e d as an open-ended q u e s t i o n i n the p i l o t study q u e s t i o n n a i r e . From the responses to t h a t q u e s t i o n , a l i s t of f i f t e e n purposes, s t r u c t u r e d by c l a s s i f y i n q the responses from the p i l o t study, was developed. In the p i l o t study, f o u r t e e n sources were be c l a s s i f i e d by respondents a c c o r d i n g to frequency of use. The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t " a b s t r a c t s , reviews" and " b i b l i o g r a p h i e s and b o o k l i s t s " had very s i m i l a r responses, and t h a t " d i s s e r t a t i o n s or t h e s e s " and "unpublished r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s " were almost i d e n t i c a l * Each of these p a i r s was merged i n t o a s i n g l e item. In comparing the responses of the p i l o t study t o those of the Market Study, (Hood and Blackwell,1976) i t became evident t h a t an item r e f l e c t i n g " p e r s o n a l l i b r a r y " and "notes and f i l e s i n my own o f f i c e " should be added. 20 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources was expanded from the e i g h t items i n the p i l o t study t o e l e v e n , so as to i n c l u d e t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l items t h a t were important i n the Hood and B l a c k w e l l study; These t h r e e items were " I s r e s p o n s i v e t o my p a r t i c u l a r problem", "Keeps me aware of new developments", and "Is l i k e l y t o have the i n f o r m a t i o n I want". In the s e c t i o n about problems i n f i n d i n g and using i n f o r m a t i o n , f o u r of the items i n the p i l o t study i n c l u d e d the word "understandable". The use.of the word seemed to i n h i b i t respondents from a d m i t t i n g t h a t any of these was a problem, so two of these items were r e w r i t t e n , and one, " f i n d i n g understandable i n f o r m a t i o n " , was r e p l a c e d by " f i n d i n g q u a l i f i e d personnel to h e l p l o c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n " . The l a t t e r item was added because response t o the open-ended " i d e a l " system question had r e v e a l e d a need f o r help from a person i n seeking i n f o r m a t i o n . The p i l o t study r e s u l t s proved v a l u a b l e i n r e d e s i g n i n g the ' g u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r the f i n a l study. Sampling The sampling plan f o r t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y a random sample of t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel at the s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t l e v e l . The B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Education c o l l e c t s i n f o r m a t i o n on employment* grades and s u b j e c t s taught, t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e , s a l a r y , c l a s s s i z e , teacher t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n , and l e v e l of education (a copy o f t h i s document,'Form J 1 , i s i n Appendix I ) . A f t e r these data are processed, a Form J teacher i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e c l a s s i f i e s 21 teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a c c o r d i n g t o eigh t e e n p o s i t i o n s , nine f o r each of the elementary and secondary l e v e l s . The p o s i t i o n s of ' r e l i e v i n g t e a c h e r s ' at both l e v e l s and 'department heads' at the elementary l e v e l were omitted from the p r e s e n t study: The f i r s t s tep i n sampling was to d e f i n e the c a t e g o r i e s of p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l ( h e r e a f t e r c a l l e d ' p o s i t i o n ' ) . P r i n c i p a l s and v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s were assigned to the same c a t e g o r y — • p r i n c i p a l ' — a t each l e v e l . Within each d i s t r i c t , s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s were merged i n t o one group, and a l l support personnel were merged i n t o another. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n nine c a t e g o r i e s of p o s i t i o n : 1. elementary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , 2. j u n i o r and secondary secondary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s , 3, secondary department heads, 4. elementary p r i n c i p a l s and v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s , 5. secondary p r i n c i p a l s and v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s , 6. support personnel i n elementary s c h o o l s , 7. support personnel i n secondary s c h o o l s , 8. d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and 9. d i s t r i c t support personnel. The second step was to enumerate the su b - p o p u l a t i o n s i n each of these nine c a t e g o r i e s . To do t h i s , d e s c r i p t i o n s of the previous year's p o p u l a t i o n s were obtained from the 1976 f i l e of teacher i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t e d from the Form J data. Using those f i g u r e s , sampling p r o p o r t i o n s were d e r i v e d so t h a t eventual samples would be of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e ; These sampling p r o p o r t i o n s were a p p l i e d t o d i s t r i c t personnel l i s t s to produce the f i n a l sample. Because the d i s t r i c t - l e v e l s u p e r v i s o r y c a t e g o r i e s were ambiquous—^it was not i n i t i a l l y c l e a r whether they s h o u l d be regarded as. ' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ' or 'support' p e r s o n n e l - - a ques t i o n was added to determine how ' d i s t r i c t ' 22 personnel spend the l a r g e s t amount of t h e i r time* Two answers to t h i s g u e s t i o n — ' a s s i s t i n g t e a c h e r s ' and ' c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i n g ' — i n d i c a t e d support s e r v i c e s , while the other two-- • s u p e r v i s i n g / a s s e s s i n g t e a c h e r s ' and ' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s ' — i n d i c a t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . As the d i s t r i c t p o s i t i o n responses were coded, the items checked were used t o v e r i f y the placement of each respondent, I t was obvious i n coding the responses t h a t n e a r l y a l l d i s t r i c t personnel l a b e l l e d , and viewed, themselves more as support personnel than as s u p e r v i s o r s and e v a l u a t o r s * The f i n a l sample was i d e n t i f i e d by s o r t i n g the September 30, 1977 Form J teacher i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e a c c o r d i n g to d i s t r i c t code, to ensure a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of teachers i n the sample. Subjects from each p o s i t i o n category were s e l e c t e d using the corresponding sampling p r o p o r t i o n p (i) f o r category i . T h i s was done by f i r s t c hoosing, at random, a number between 1 and 1 / p ( i ) , and s t a r t i n g with t h a t person i n the category l i s t : T h e r e a f t e r , every 1 / p ( i ) t h person on the l i s t was chosen. The sampling p r o p o r t i o n s were chosen so t h a t approximately the t a r g e t sample s i z e would r e s u l t . That i s : P ( i ) = p o p u l a t i o n of t e a c h e r s i n category i Target sample s i z e f o r category i 23 A l l t he s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n the province were c o n t a c t e d with a request f o r permission t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e survey (the l e t t e r r e q u e s t i n q permission i s i n Appendix E ) . Only two d i s t r i c t s (Campbell E i v e r and Richmond) refused t o permit the survey. The s c h o o l s i n Burnaby that had been used i n the p i l o t study were d e l e t e d from the l i s t , and the t e a c h e r s from those s c h o o l s were not sent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . As a r e s u l t of these procedures, 1,640 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d to s c h o o l d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s , and forwarded from there t o respondents. F i v e weeks a f t e r the o r i g i n a l m a i l i n q , reminder postcards were mailed d i r e c t l y t o a l l non-respondents i n the sample (a copy of the post c a r d i s i n Appendix F ) . Table 1 g i v e s the t a r g e t sample, number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s mailed and the number and percentaqe o f useable r e t u r n s . Table 1 Sampling Frame and Returns P o s i t i o n Target Sample Mailed Returns Usable %age Elementary Teachers 400 394 236 59.9 Secondary Teachers 300 292 186 63.7 Secondary D. Heads 150 147 106 72.1 P r i n c i p a l s (Elem.) 130 121 97 80.2 P r i n c i p a l s (Sec.-/ 65 62 46 74.2 Support (Elem.) 100 97 69 71.1 Support (Sec.) 125 118 66 55.9 A d m i n i s t r a t o r (Dist.) 190 195 31 15.9* Support ( D i s t r i c t ) 190 214 200 93.5* T o t a l s 1650 1640 1037 63.23 *the ambiguity of these r o l e s seems ev i d e n t here, I f these two c a t e g o r i e s are combined, then the response r a t e f o r both c a t e g o r i e s i s 231/409 =56.48% 24 In t o t a l , 1 , 0 7 8 ( 65 . 7 i & ) of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were returned, or t h e i r non-returns were e x p l a i n e d by respondents. Twenty-six of the r e t u r n s were blank; h a l f of them with no reason f o r the l a c k of response. Reasons t h a t were g i v e n i n c l u d e d : l a c k of time ( 5 ) , p r e f e r r e d not to answer ( 3 ) , hopeless to t r y to change t h i n g s (1) and r e s i g n e d from t e a c h i n g (4). In the weeks f o l l o w i n g the m a i l i n g of the reminder, f i f t e e n s u b j e c t s wrote to e x p l a i n t h e i r non-response. S i x had r e c e i v e d the reminder c a r d , uut not the o r i g i n a l g u e s t i o n n a i r e ; f i v e admitted having l o s t or misplaced the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f o u r claimed t o have mailed t h e i r responses, but they had not been r e c e i v e d . D e s c r i p t i o n of the F i n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i v i d e d i n t o these three major s e c t i o n s and t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e s u b - s e c t i o n s : D e s c r i p t i o n of the User P o s i t i o n Years of Experience Sense of I s o l a t i o n L e v e l of Education Information Dissemination A t t i t u d e to Information Information Seeking Behavior Purposes f o r Seeking Information Sources C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sources Problems i n F i n d i n g and Using I n f o r m a t i o n Your " i d e a l " System. 25 In the c o v e r i n g l e t t e r , each respondent was o f f e r e d a summary of r e s u l t s i f he gave h i s name and address on the l a s t page of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . One hundred and twenty-three reguested the summary. A b r i e f r e p o r t has been desiqned f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n t o each of these i n d i v i d u a l s . P.escrip_tion of the User The f o l l o w i n q s e c t i o n w i l l d i s c u s s each of the elev e n s e c t i o n s i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e * A d e s c r i p t i o n of the q u e s t i o n s and the reasons f o r i n c l u d i n g each of them w i l l be presented. P o s i t i o n . Nine a l t e r n a t i v e s were i n c l u d e d : Elementary s c h o o l teacher J u n i o r or secondary high s c h o o l teacher Secondary department head P r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l (elementary) P r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l (secondary) Support person i n an elementary, s c h o o l Support person i n a secondary s c h o o l D i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r (superintendent or a s s i s t a n t ) D i s t r i c t support person ( c o n s u l t a n t * s u p e r v i s o r , r e s e a r c h e r , e t c . ) . Each respondent was requested to check the a p p r o p r i a t e combination of a l t e r n a t i v e s i f i n h i s work he was assiqned to more than one p o s i t i o n * Very few respondents checked more than one, and the subsequent q u e s t i o n s , a s k i n q which qrades were taught and how time was spent, were used to a s s i g n each of these respondents to a s i n g l e p o s i t i o n . J u s t one p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r y , then, was coded f o r each respondent. 26 Years of Experience ( E x p e r i e n c e ) . Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e number of years of p r o f e s s i o n a l experience they had,* This item was used i n l i e u of one asking f o r age, such as was used by Hood & B l a c k w e l l (1976). I t was f e l t t h a t years o f experience would be r e l a t e d t o i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g h a b i t s more than would years i n age, and t h a t the corresponding q u e s t i o n would be l e s s l i k e l y t o be omitted. Sense of I s o l a t i o n ( I s o l a t i o n ) . Each respondent was asked to r e p o r t the deqree to which he: f e l t i s o l a t e d from the i n f o r m a t i o n sources he would l i k e to use* Four c h o i c e s were presented; not i s o l a t e d , somewhat i s o l a t e d , c o n s i d e r a b l y i s o l a t e d and s e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d * Because the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d province-wide, i t would be p o s s i b l e t o determine whether 'sense of i s o l a t i o n * i s r e l a t e d to a c t u a l geographic d i s t a n c e from a l a r g e urban c e n t r e , or whether i t i s due to other f a c t o r s . L e v e l of Educat i o n (Education). Respondents were asked t o check t h e i r h i g h e s t earned degree from t h i s l i s t : high s c h o o l , bachelors^ masters or d o c t o r a t e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of education and sources used may r e f l e c t the i n f l u e n c e o f higher e d u c a t i o n on the awareness and use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources* 27 I n f o r m a t i o n Dissemination (Dissemination),; T h i s item asked f o r the r e s p o n d e n t 9 s p e r c e p t i o n of h i m s e l f as one who d i s s e m i n a t e s i n f o r m a t i o n through person-to-person channels. Each respondent was to i d e n t i f y how o f t e n others came t o him f o r i n f o r m a t i o n or how o f t e n he gave i n f o r m a t i o n to h i s c o l l e a g u e s ; The time i n t e r v a l s presented were: l e s s than once a month, once a month, once a week, once a day, more than once a day. Responses to t h i s item might i d e n t i f y i n d i v i d u a l s who are n a t u r a l ' l i n k e r s ' i n a s c h o o l or d i s t i c t , or they may i n d i c a t e which p o s i t i o n s are most a c t i v e , or p e r c e i v e themselves to be most a c t i v e , i n d i s s e m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . In J u l y , 1977, Hood emphasized the importance of l o c a t i n g these n a t u r a l d i s s e m i n a t o r s : The u l t i m a t e user may be a poor t a r g e t , We may have to go upstream and i d e n t i f y the i n t e r m e d i a r y , the person who tends to disseminate i n f o r m a t i o n , and design our i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s to s u i t h i s needs....We need to focus on the l i n k e r s , the e d u c a t i o n a l middlemen, the gatekeepers, We need to l o c a t e them and study t h e i r present d i s p o s i t i o n and t h e i r needs so t h a t we can f i n d new ways to serve them (Note 1). A t t i t u d e t o Information ( A t t i t u d e ) . F i f t e e n items were w r i t t e n t o r e f l e c t the f i v e stages of Krathwohl's Taxonomy (1964). Each item d e s c r i b e d a behavior, and respondents were r e g u i r e d t o c i r c l e a number, from one to f o u r * to i n d i c a t e whether th e behavior was "very u n l i k e me" or "very l i k e me". The even number of responses was used so t h a t a midpoint would not be a v a i l a b l e ; n e u t r a l response was thus not permitted by the s c a l e . High s c o r e s on t h i s s c a l e i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i v e (favorable) a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n . 28 Information Seeking Behavior Purposes,, A l i s t of f i f t e e n p o s s i b l e purposes f o r s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was presented. For each item, the respondent was asked to check the frequency f o r which he sought i n f o r m a t i o n f o r tha t purpose* The th r e e c h o i c e s were: seldom or never, sometimes, or f r e q u e n t l y , T h i s item i s of value as an index of educators' purposes i n seekinq information,* I t can a l s o be used to reduce . the number of p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s f o r some an a l y s e s (see Data A n a l y s e s ) . Sources. T h i r t e e n sources were l i s t e d , i n c l u d i n g p l a c e s ( l i b r a r i e s , e t c . ) , persons ( c o l l e a g u e s , e x p e r t s ) , or m a t e r i a l s (books, computers, j o u r n a l s ) * Both formal ( p r i n t ) and i n f o r m a l sources were i n c l u d e d . Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r frequency o f use f o r each source,, choosing from never, r a r e l y , sometimes, and f r e q u e n t l y . The judged frequency of use of sources i s the dependent v a r i a b l e f o r many of the analyses i n t h i s study. While i t i s important to i d e n t i f y the comparative frequency o f use of these sources, i t i s a l s o important to i d e n t i f y which f a c t o r s o f p o s i t i o n , a t t i t u d e , experience, education or i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n i n f l u e n c e t h a t use. I t would a l s o be of value t o i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sources t h a t make them popular and to i d e n t i f y the problems p e r c e i v e d by educators i n us i n g them* C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sources., ( C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) . E l e v e n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources were presented and each respondent was asked to i n d i c a t e how important each was t o him. L e v e l s of importance were: of no importance, of l i t t l e importance, q u i t e important and very important. Knowledqe of which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are important can help those t r y i n q to t r a n s f e r i n f o r m a t i o n i n choosing which methods to use. &t the same time, understanding which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not important may prove of equal value. Problems i n F i n d i n g and Using I n f o r m a t i o n ^ (Problems). T h i s s e c t i o n presented ten problems t h a t users miqht encounter, and asked repondents t o i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t to which each i s a genuine d i f f i c u l t y . Four l e v e l s of response were l i s t e d : no problem, very l i t t l e problem, c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y , and extreme d i f f i c u l t y . Understanding of the problems i d e n t i f i e d by i n f o r m a t i o n seekers may have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r ways to s i m p l i f y e x i s t i n q systems* Item 3, ''getting i n f o r m a t i o n q u i c k l y enough" was i n c l u d e d to measure the importance of f a s t turn-around i n s e c u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . The Market Study q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Hood & B l a c k w e l l , 1976) had i n c l u d e d a separate q u e s t i o n about the amount of time users c o u l d " u s u a l l y allow to elapse a f t e r r e a l i z i n g the need f o r i n f o r m a t i o n " * The response to t h i s item i n t h e i r study i n d i c a t e d t h a t : about 30 percent of these users needed i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n one day..*.nearly the same p r o p o r t i o n (29%) can wait two or t h r e e days; another f o u r t h (24%) can wait about a week....The r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t response times suggest t h a t mail exchange would be t o l e r a b l e f o r only a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the u s e r s - . . . T h i s suggests t h a t most i n f o r m a t i o n sources must be l o c a l or a e c e s s i b i g through tele-communicat|.on. channels (p. IV-29) i 30 In the present study, s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i s paid to t h i s item, to determine whether t h i s i n s i s t e n c e on f a s t response i s r e p l i c a t e d * Your '.'ideal" System. T h i s q u e s t i o n was i n c l u d e d to g i v e respondents a chance to express t h e i r own i d e a s about what methods would be most u s e f u l . The f i n a l g u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of these eleven s e c t i o n s * They are i n v e s t i g a t e d s i n g l y and i n v a r i o u s combinations t o d i s c o v e r the present p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a t t i t u d e s and i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g b e h a v i o r s of a sample o f educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia. S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology Data P r o c e s s i n g As each g u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e c e i v e d , i t was g i v e n an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The d i s t r i c t code, taken from the r e t u r n address l a b e l , was entered i n t o a computer f i l e with the.data taken from the responses to a l l s e c t i o n s except "your ' i d e a l ' system". That s e c t i o n was hand t a b u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to an e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d l i s t . Responses to the a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n items were item analyzed, then the t o t a l s c o r e f o r the f i f t e e n items was t r a n s f e r r e d to the master data f i l e . M i s s i n g responses to items i n the a t t i t u d e scale:were coded as 2.5 (the midpoint of the scale) so the t o t a l s c o r e s would not be badly m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . (There were 62 missing s c o r e s , or 0.4% of the t o t a l r e s p o n s e s ) . 31 Data Analyses Methods of data a n a l y s i s i n t h i s study i n c l u d e : simple t a b u l a t i o n s of d i s t i b u t i o n s , rank o r d e r i n g by means, c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s * a n a l y s i s of varia n c e with S c h e f f e m u l t i p l e comparisons, u n i v a r i a t e and b i v a r i a t e freguency t a b l e s , item a n a l y s i s , f a c t o r a n a l y s i s and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . (Note 2* The computer programs mentioned i n t e x t are s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e d i n the Notes which precede the B i b l i o g r a p h y ) . UBC:TBP ( T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package; Le & T e n i s c i , 1977) was used to produce the mean f o r each P o s i t i o n on each o f the f i f t e e n purposes f o r seeking information,. T h i s a r r a y o f means (9x15) was used as i n p u t data f o r h i e r a r c h i c a l grouping a n a l y s i s by the UBC:C-GBOUP program (Patterson & Whitaker, 1977). T h i s procedure d e f i n e d each of nine: p o s i t i o n s as a •group', then reduced the number of groups by one i n each of a s e r i e s of s t e p s so as to minimize the estimate of v a r i a t i o n i n p r o f i l e s of purpose w i t h i n the groups. A l l nine: c a t e g o r i e s o f p o s i t i o n were used f o r the u n i v a r i a t e and b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s t h a t i n c l u d e d P o s i t i o n * The f o u r p o s i t i o n groups developed i n the c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s provided more n e a r l y e g u a l c e l l s i z e s f o r the analyses o f variance and the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . UBC:MVTAB ( M u l t i v a t i a t e Contingency T a b u l a t i o n s ; B j e r r i n g , 1974) generated u n i v a r i a t e and b i v a r i a t e data on the p o s i t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n . Standard item a n a l y s i s was done, using the program LEBTAP (Nelson, 1974) on the items of the a t t i t u d e . s c a l e . T h i s produced 32 c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s f o r s u b - t e s t s ( s t a g e s ) . T o t a l s c o r e s d e v e l o p e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s were used as raw d a t a f o r a n a l y s i s o f re s p o n s e s , u s i n g SPSS:GOTTMAN ( N i e , 1975), t o d i s c o v e r whether the h i e r a r c h i c a l n a t u r e o f the taxonomy had been c o n f i r m e d . Rank o r d e r i n g by means was used t o r e p o r t r e s u l t s on s c h o o l r e g i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o the sense of i s o l a t i o n o f t h e i r e d u c a t o r s , and o f purposes, s o u r c e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o u r c e s and problems. U n i v a r i a t e one-way a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were done, u s i n g t h e program SSPS:ONEWAY ( N i e , 1975) em p l o y i n g (1) Purposes as th e dependent v a r i a b l e s and P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e as t h e independent v a r i a b l e s , (2) Sources as dependent v a r i a b l e s and each o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s as i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , and (3) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o u r c e s as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s and P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e as the ind e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . S c n e f f e ' s m u l t i p l e comparisons were computed f o r each a n a l y s i s which y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o . S o urces were a n a l y z e d by m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n u s i n g BMD:02R (Brown, 1977) s i x p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s as p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was performed u s i n g SPSS:FiCTOR ( N i e , 1975) t o i d e n t i f y o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s of s o u r c e s . 33 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Data analyses i n t h i s study were designed t o p r o v i d e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the i n f o r m a t i o n sources used, and analyses o f the extent to which P o s i t i o n * E x p erience, Education, I s o l a t i o n , D i s s e m i n a t i o n , and A t t i t u d e i n f l u e n c e the c h o i c e of sources used; Other analyses examined respondents' purposes f o r s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources t h a t are important to them, and the problems encountered when they seek i n f o r m a t i o n ; R e l a t i o n s h i p s between these f a c t o r s and s e l e c t e d p ersonal f a c t o r s were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d . Other analyses were designed to examine the A t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e ; The s c a l e was analyzed t o determine whether the p o s t u l a t e d h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of the taxonomy c o u l d be confirmed. R e s u l t s of the.study are presented here i n t h r e e s e c t i o n s : 1. D e s c r i p t i o n of the Information User, 2. Inf o r m a t i o n Seeking Behavior, and 3. I d e a l Systems of i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r suggested by users. D e s c r i p t i o n o f the User Six q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s — P o s i t i o n , Experience, I s o l a t i o n , Education, D i s s e m i n a t i o n , and A t t i t u d e — d e s c r i b e . the respondents. 34 P o s i t i o n Respondents chose from nine p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . Table 2 g i v e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n and percentages of those responses. Table 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents over P r o f e s s i o n a l P o s i t i o n s P o s i t i o n 1. Elementary Teacher (K-7) 2. Secondary Teacher (8-12) 3. Secondary Dept. Heads 4. Elementary A d m i n i s t r a t o r s 5. Secondary A d m i n i s t r a t o r s 6. Support (Elementary) 7. Support (Secondary) 8. D i s r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t o r s 9. D i s t r i c t Support Personnel Frequency 236 186 106 97 46 69 66 31 200 Percentaqe 22* 8 11:9 10. 9. 4, 6. 6.4 3,.0 19 i 3 T o t a l 1037 100.0 The nine c a t e g o r i e s of p o s i t i o n provided i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e most of the p o s i t i o n s h e l d by t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel i n the province* The nine c a t e g o r i e s are used i n a l l the u n i v a r i a t e and b i v a r i a t e t a b u l a t i o n s * These nine c a t e g o r i e s range i n s i z e from 31 to 236. In order t o do a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e , i t was d e s i r a b l e to have fewer groups with more n e a r l y equal c e l l s i z e s * To combine some of these nine c a t e q o r i e s i n t o fewer groups, means were computed f o r each of the nine p o s i t i o n s on each o f the.15 purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n . These 135 means were used as i n p u t to a stepwise c l u s t e r (grouping) a n a l y s i s . T h i s a n a l y s i s merges groups one a t a time, and r e p o r t s the ' e r r o r * f o r each merging,* The optimum number of groups i s i n d i c a t e d when a sharp 35 r i s e i n e r r o r value occurs. In t h i s case, as r e p o r t e d i n Table 3, the optimum number of groups might have been f i v e ( e r ror=9i02), but at t h a t step the s m a l l e s t group, d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , had not been j o i n e d to any other group. The next step merged d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with elementary and secondary a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and r e s u l t e d i n f o u r groups of s i m i l a r s i z e * Table 3 R e s u l t s of C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s of P o s i t i o n s Number of Groups P o s i t i o n s J o i n e d * E f r o r Cum. E r r o r 8 2 & 3 3, 148 3.148 7 1 6 6 3*585 6.732 6 4 6 5 6.899 13,631 5 7 6 9 9.028 22.669 4 8 6465 14.265 36.924 * group numbers are i d e n t i f i e d i n Table 2. When t h i s a n a l y s i s i s used, the f o u r r e s u l t i n g P o s i t i o n c l u s t e r s and t h e i r f r e q u e n c i e s are: 1. Elementary Teachers & Elementary Support Personnel 304 2* Secondary Teachers & Secondary Department Heads 292 3. Secondary Support Personnel & D i s t r i c t Support personnel 265 4* Elementary 6 Secondary & D i s t r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t o r s 173. 36 As a check on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s and u s e f u l n e s s o f t h i s grouping, a oneway a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed using P o s i t i o n c l u s t e r as the independent v a r i a b l e , a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n as the dependent measure and the i n d i v i d u a l respondent as the u n i t of o b s e r v a t i o n * R e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are summarized i n Table 4. Table 4 Summary of A n a l y s i s of Variance: A t t i t u d e as a F u n c t i o n of P o s i t i o n C l u s t e r Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Between c l u s t e r s 3 Among I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n c l u s t e r s 1032 T o t a l 1035 47,330,08 * p<,0001 These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the f o u r p o s i t i o n c l u s t e r s suggested by the grouping procedure d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each other i n a t t i t u d e , and t h a t the c l u s t e r i n g procedure based on purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n i s v a l i d f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g groups of p o s i t i o n s which are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s to information,. The nature and extent of these d i f f e r e n c e s are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter V. 6,561,97 2,187.3 55.262* 40,768,11 39:6 37 Experience Table 5 i n d i c a t e s years of experience as r e l a t e d to p o s i t i o n h e l d . Experience was r e p o r t e d as exact number of y e a r s and coded as t w o - d i g i t numbers. Scores were grouped i n t o t e n - year i n t e r v a l s f o r a n a l y s i s . Table 5 i n d i c a t e s t h a t 77;3% of a l l respondents have l e s s than 20 years of p r o f e s s i o n a l e xperience. Table 5 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Experience and P o s i t i o n : F r e g u e n c i e s aa€ Percentages P o s i t i o n Eange of Years of Experience Freguency Percen per of <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 Category T o t a l E l ; Teachers 59.3 30.5 8.4 1.7 236 22.8 Sec.Teachers 55.9 27.4 13.4 3;4 186 17.9 Sec.D.Heads 37.7 38.7 17.9 5.7 106 10.2 E l . P r i n c i p a l 26.8 39.2 33.0 1.0 97 9.3 Sec. P r i n c i p . 23, 9 47*8 23.9 4.3 46 4.4 El.Support 49.3 31.9 11.6 7.2 69 6.7 Sec.Support 51.5 27.3 13.6 7,6 66 6.4 Diss. Admin; 3.2 32.3 51.6 12*9 31 3*1 Dis.Support 40.0 29.0 25.0 6.0 200 19.3 % of T o t a l s 45.3 32.0 18.3 4.3 100.0 Freguencies 470 332 190 45 1037 The obtained r e s u l t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( C h i - sguare=38.03, p<,01). I t i s noteworthy t h a t more than 55% of elementary and secondary teachers have l e s s than 10 years o f experience, and t h a t fewer than 2% o f elementary t e a c h e r s have more than 30 years of experience. Almost 50% of the members of the three support groups have l e s s than 10 years e x p e r i e n c e , while 60% of d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have more than 20 years experience. 38 I s o l a t i o n Table.6 presents the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of responses to the question "How i s o l a t e d do you f e e l from sources you would l i k e to use?" and p o s i t i o n . I t was hypothesized that p o s i t i o n would have no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o sense of i s o l a t i o n . Table 6 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of I s o l a t i o n and P o s i t i o n : Frequencies and Percentages P o s i t i o n Range of Sense of I s o l a t i o n Frequency Percent per of S e r i o Consid Somew Not Category T o t a l N El.Teacher 5.3 15, 4 49.3 30.0 227 22.4 Sec.Teacher 5.0 21.1 50.0 23. 9 180 17.8 Sec:D.Head 7.7 10.6 51.9 29.8 104 17,8 E l . P r i n c i p a l 4,3 14. 0 49.5 32.3 93 9.0 S e c . P r i n c i p a l 17.4 52.2 30. 4 46 4:5 El*Support 7.3 10. 1 58.0 24. 6 69 6. 8 Sec.Support 6.1 20.0 43. 1 30. 8 65 6:4 Dis.Admini* 3,2 9.7 51.6 35* 5 31 3. 1 Dis* Support 7.1 17.2 48.0 27.8 198 19.6 % of t o t a l s 5. 6 16.0 . 49.9 28. 0 100.0 Frequencies 57 162 505 289 1013 As expected, the r e s u l t s of the chi-square t e s t were not s i g n i f i c a n t (p=.78). The c a t e g o r i e s o f f e r e d i n response to t h i s item were • s e r i o u s l y 1 1 , ' c o n s i d e r a b l y ' , 'somewhat', or 'not' i s o l a t e d * In the p i l o t study, which was administered i n one l a r g e urban d i s t r i c t , 13.2% of the respondents f e l t c o n s i d e r a b l y or s e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d from the i n f o r m a t i o n sources they would l i k e . t o use. In these r e s u l t s only 21.52% f e l t c o n s i d e r a b l y or s e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d , even though t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i s t r i b u t e d province-wide. 39 To f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s sense of i s o l a t i o n , responses to the g u e s t i o n were c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with the geographic area i n which the respondent worked. The province of B r i t i s h Columbia has 75 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s organized i n t o 12 regions* These twelve r e g i o n s were used as areas f o r the a n a l y s i s * Table 7 g i v e s the order of the d i s t r i c t s by d e c r e a s i n g means on the sense o f i s o l a t i o n question* Higher s c o r e s i n t h i s t a b l e : i n d i c a t e l e s s sense of i s o l a t i o n . Table 7 Sense of I s o l a t i o n f o r Each of Twelve Education Regions Rank Region n Mean Sense of I s o l a t i o n 1 6. Greater Vancouver 352 3* 12 2 11. Vancouver I s l a n d South 141 3.04 3 12. Vancouver I s l a n d North 47 2. 98 4 5. F r a s e r V a l l e y 97 2. 94 5 3. Okanagan 100 2,93 6 4. M a i n l i n e Cariboo 77 2L91 7 9. Northern I n t e r i o r 67 2. 84 8 10. Peace River 36 2.77 9 2. West Kootenay 32 2.56 10 1. East Kootenay 33 2.45 11 8, North Coast 30 2.33 12 7. South Coast 22 2*32 Table 8 presents the r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e sense of I s o l a t i o n as the dependent v a r i a b l e and Region independent v a r i a b l e . using as the 40 Table 8 Summary of A n a l y s i s of Variance: Sense of I s o l a t i o n as a F u n c t i o n of Begion Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Between r e g i o n s 11 Among i n d i v i d u a l s 46.5061 4.2278 5.125 ** w i t h i n r e g i o n s 1022 843.1177 0.8250 T o t a l 1033 889.6238 **p<.001 On page 41, a map of B r i t i s h Columbia i n d i c a t e s the boundaries of the re g i o n s and the numbers assigned to them. (Two blacked-out areas show Campbell E i v e r and Eichmond d i s t r i c t s , the two d i s t r i c t s t h a t d i d not permit the survey). Examination of the map and the rank order of r e g i o n s r e v e a l s t h a t geographic d i s t a n c e i s not the only f a c t o r which i n f l u e n c e s the sense of i s o l a t i o n . The South Coast, Begion 7, c o n t a i n s the respondents who f e e l most i s o l a t e d , yet t h i s d i s t r i c t i s g e o g r a p h i c a l l y adjacent to Vancouver. The East and West Kootenays! each contained respondents who f e l t q u i t e i s o l a t e d , although g e o g r a p h i c a l l y those two r e g i o n s are not as f a r from c e n t r e s of popula t i o n as are the two northern r e g i o n s of Peace B i v e r and Northern Interior,. To determine why some of these f a r no r t h e r n r e g i o n s do not r e p o r t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y h i g h sense of i s o l a t i o n would r e g u i r e f u r t h e r study. 41 B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A S C H O O L D I S T R I C T S 10 eo 2 - Re Jion 54 E a s t Kootenay West Kootenay Okanagan Femie Cranbrook Ktmbafky Windermere B Catitogar 10 Arrow Lekei Trail Grand f o r k i Kent* Vetlev 14 Southern Okenepen 15 Penticton Keremeot Princeton 11 12 13 16 1? 18 Golden 35 36 37 36 Revelttoke A r m n r o n » SpeJfarncheen Vernon Central Okanfen Kemloopt North Thompson C*wi»o Chikotln Oueywt LlUooet 30 South Cerfeoo 31 Martin 32 M o p * 33 CnillrwKk 34 Abbottford Lanfllev Surrey Delta Richmond 39 Vancouver 40 New Westminster 41 Burnab y 47 Maple R idot 43 Coquitlvn 44 North Vancouver 45 Wrtl Vancouver 46 Sac Kali 47 Powell U n a 48 Howl Sound 40 Ocean Falls SO Oueen Char tout 52 Prince Ruperi 64 Smiiheri 55 Burnt Lake 56 Necheko 67 Prince Gecee 59 Peace Rn*r South 60 Peace RWrr North 61 Create* Victoria 62 Sooke Saanich Gul l Itiendi 65 Cowichen 66 Lake Cowichen 68 Nanatmo 69 Ouelicurn 70 Albern. 71 Courtenav 77 Campbell River 76 Mtuton 76 Aftanu Herrraon 77 Summerlend 60 Kittmat 81 f on Nelaon Vancouver ItlendWttt Vancouver Utarxl Nonh O n i o n Katlo St.bine B8 Ter-»c* 89 Shutwap 9? NilhQ* 63 64 64 85 87 M a i n l i n e - C a r i b o o F r a s e r V a l l e y G r e a t e r Vancouver T South Coast N o r t h Coast N o r t h e r n I n t e r i o r Peace R i v e r Vancouver I s l a n d South Vancouver I s l a n d N o r t h 10 w Figure 1 B r i t i s h Columbia School Districts by Regions 42 Ed uc at i o n Table 9 r e p o r t s the l e v e l of education of personnel i n each of t i e nine p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . Table 9 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Education and P o s i t i o n ; Freguencies and Percentages P o s i t i o n Eange of L e v e l of E d ucation Freguency Percent per of Highsc Bach Masters Doct Category T o t a l N El.Teacher 29.8 66.2 3.5 .4 228 22.4 Sec* Teacher 4,* 9 79.7 14.8 .5 182 17.9 See.D.Head 2.-9 68.9 27.2 1.0 103 10, 1 Elem.Princ. 2.1 69, 1 26.6 2. 1 94 . 9i. 2 Sec.Princ. 34.8 63.0 2. 2 46 4.5 Elem; Support 22.4 61.2 16.4 67 6.7 Sec.Support 3.0 66.7 30.3 66 6.6 D i s t * Admin. 12.9 77.4 9.7 31 3. 1 D i s t i S u p p o r t 7,̂ 0 45.0 46.5 1.5 200 19. 7 % of T o t a l 11. 1 61.6 26.1 1.2 100,0 F r e g u e n c i e s 113 627 265 12 1017 S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of t h i s t a b l e i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e because 11% of the c e l l s are empty, although some i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t s do emerge. Across the sample, 29.8% of elementary t e a c h e r s and 22.4% of elementary support personnel have no u n i v e r s i t y degree* In the province of B r i t i s h Columbia i t i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e to get a t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e . w i t h o u t completing a b a c h e l o r ' s degree. A l a r g e number of the teachers i n t h i s category may have been i n the p r o f e s s i o n f o r many years, and obtained t h e i r t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e s while teacher t r a i n i n g programs were s t i l l i n the normal s c h o o l . Also i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category are many s p e c i a l i s t s who have s p e c i f i c job g u a l i f i c a t i o n s which do not i n c l u d e a u n i v e r s i t y degree. 43 Dissemination Table 10 r e p o r t s responses of p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o the q u e s t i o n "How often do your c o l l e a q u e s come to you f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n or do you qive such i n f o r m a t i o n to them?" Table 10 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Dissemination and P o s i t i o n : Frequencies and Percentages P o s i t i o n Frequency of Dissemination Frequency Percent per of <1/mon 1/mon 1/week 1/day >1/day Category T o t a l N El.Teacher 15.2 23. 1 38.7 18.7 4.3 230 22.5 Sec.Teacher 16.8 22.7 36.8 22.2 1.6 185 18: 1 Sec.DbHead 6.6 17.9 42.4 26.4 6.6 106 10.3 E l . P r i n c i p . 1.1 7.4 30.9 42.6 18, 1 94 9.2 S e C i P r i n c i p . 2.2 13.0 15.2 47.8 21.7 46 4.5 El.Support 4.4 13.2 36.8 29.4 16.2 68 6.6 Sec. Support 4.7 7.8 . 40.6 . 26.6 20. 3 64 6.3 Di s . Admin* 3.2 6.5 35.5 54.8 31 3.0 Dis.Support 3.0 4,5 20.5 30.5 41.5 200 19.5 % of T o t a l 8.5 14.8 32.4 27.6 16. 7 100.0 Frequencies 87 151 332 283 171 1024 The r e l a t i o n s h i p ' between P o s i t i o n and I n f o r m a t i o n Dissemination proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Pearson's Chi-square=297.57, p<.0001). According t o t h i s s e l f - r e p o r t of respondents, d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are the: most a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i n g p o s i t i o n group, with 90.7% asked f o r or g i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n once a day or more. The next three most a c t i v e (once a> day or more) d i s s e m i n a t i n g groups are d i s t r i c t support p e r s o n n e l (72.0%), secondary p r i n c i p a l s (69.6%), and elementary p r i n c i p a l s (60.6%). 4 4 This item was included i n an attempt to i d e n t i f y natural information l i n k e r s . I t would have been helpful to have some way to confirm these s e l f - r e p o r t s , perhaps i n the form of "When you need educational information, what person do you go to see?" The r e l a t i v e l y infrequent dissemination reported by some of the elementary and secondary support personnel i s of some concern. Attitude Attitude scale as a hierarchy;. One purpose, f o r developinq the attitude scale was to further the investiqation of the hierarchy posited by Krathwohl et a l ' s ( 1 9 6 4 ) a f f e c t i v e taxonomy. Fift e e n items were desiqned, with three items f o r each of the 'fiv e major l e v e l s of the taxonomy; Explanations of the level's and the items desiqned to r e f l e c t them are i n Appendix C. Each of these sets of three items was treated as a sub-test of the whole scale* The t o t a l scores for each l e v e l were computed per i n d i v i d u a l and used as raw data i n the scal i n g analyses* The serie s of analyses i s designed to discover whether a hierarchy e x i s t s , and i f i t does, the number of l e v e l s i t includes. A ' p a s s - f a i l 1 cutting point was set at nine f o r each l e v e l . This decision was based on the underlying design of the attitude scale* On the four point scale, points 1 and 2 r e f l e c t e d negative l e v e l s of response, while points 3 and 4 indicated moderate or strong positive responses. A minimum t o t a l score of 9 at a l e v e l would characterize an i n d i v i d u a l who scored at leas t 3 on a l l the items, but not one with two 2's and a 4 . This cut-off point resulted i n a reasonable range of marginal 45 f r e g u e n c i e s when the a t t i t u d e s c o r e s were analyzed u s i n g SPSS:GUTTMAN. The steps of the analyses and the r e s u l t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s of r e p r o d u c i b i l i t i e s (Rep,* = 1-proportion of e r r o r ) are given i n Table 11. At s t e p one, a l l f i v e l e v e l s were f o r c e d t o e n t e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r placement i n the taxonomy, with the most d i f f i c u l t l e v e l , l e v e l 5, f i r s t . A Hep = .869 was achieved i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . When the same f i v e l e v e l s were per m i t t e d to e n t e r f r e e l y , l e v e l s 3 and 4 re v e r s e d t h e i r order and the Rep=. 893- Since l e v e l s 3 and 4 were not f u n c t i o n i n g h i e r a c h i c a l l y as inte n d e d , they were combined f o r the next a n a l y s i s . Using f o u r l e v e l s , 5, 4&3, 2, and 1, Rep=.934. I f these f o u r l e v e l s were permitted to e n t e r f r e e l y , then l e v e l s 1 and 2 reversed orders* A f i n a l a n a l y s i s was performed on a t h r e e - l e v e l s c a l e with l e v e l s 5, 4S3, and 1&2. In t h i s a n a l y s i s , Rep =.957. In a n a l y s i s of cumulative (Guttman) s c a l e s , a Rep =.90 or hig h e r i s a primary and necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r s c a l a b i l i t y . There are c e r t a i n a u x i l i a r y c r i t e r i a t h a t can be used as checks t o ensure t h a t the value of Rep i s not s p u r i o u s l y high (Torgerson, 1962). These c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e : a s u f f i c i e n t number of items, a reasonable range of marginal f r e q u e n c i e s , a random p a t t e r n of e r r o r s , i n d i v i d u a l item r e p r o d u c i b i l i t i e s of .85 or more, and item c a t e q o r i e s which c o n t a i n more non-error than e r r o r * Each o f these c r i t e r i a was met i n the t h r e e - l e v e l a n a l y s i s * 46 T h i s s e r i e s of a n a l y s e s , while i t d i d not co n f i r m a f i v e - l e v e l h e i r a r c h y as hypothesized i n Kr'athwohl ,s taxonomy, d i d c o n f i r m the e x i s t e n c e of a h e i r a r c h y of three l e v e l s of a t t i t u d e development. Table 11 R e s u l t s of Guttman Analyses of Att i t u d e . I t e m s Step # of l e v e l s D e f i n i t i o n of Rep. Le v e l s 1 5 5,4,3,2,1 ,869 2 4 5,4&3,2,1 1934 3 3 5,4&3,2&1 .957 R e l a t i o n s h i p s between A t t i t u d e and d e s c r i p t i v e items.. The t o t a l score achieved on the f i f t e e n - i t e m a t t i t u d e s c a l e was c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with each of the other items used to d e s c r i b e respondents: P o s i t i o n , Experience, I s o l a t i o n , Education, and Di s s e m i n a t i o n . B i v a r i a t e analyses were conducted i n each case. T o t a l s c o r e on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e ranged between 23 and 60. The e i g h t s c o r e s below 30 were added t o the 163 s c o r e s between 30 and 39, and the f o u r s c o r e s of 60 were merged with the 371 between 50 and 59. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n three i n t e r v a l s of a t t i t u d e s c a l e : <40 (171), 40-49 (491), and >50 (375). These groups were used i n a l l the b i v a r i a t e a n a l y ses and ANOVA's with a t t i t u d e as the independent v a r i a b l e * a) A t t i t u d e and P o s i t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 12, d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have the most p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n with 80.7% s c o r i n g above 50, and the r e s t s c o r i n g i n the middle range. D i s t r i c t support personnel are the next most p o s i t i v e group with 65.5% i n the top category and only 4.5% s c o r i n g l e s s than 40. Table 12 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r eguencies and Percentages P o s i t i o n A t t i t u d e Score Range Freguency Percent per of <30 40-49 50-60 Category T o t a l N E l i Teachers 29.7 50.4 19.9 236 22.8 Sec,Teachers 26.9 52.7 20.4 186 17*9 Seci D.Heads 14. 1 55.7 30. 2 106 10,12 E l . P r i n c i p a l 12.4 49.5 38. 1 97 9.3 Sec. P r i n c i p . 8.7 54. 4 37.0 46 4. 4 E l * Support 10. 1 59.4 30.4 69 6.7 Sec.Support 6. 1 53.0 40.9 66 6.4' Dist.Admin. 19,* 4 80*7 31 3.0 D i s t * Support 4.5 30*0 65.5 *200 19.3 % of T o t a l 16.5 47.3 36*2 100.0 Freguencies 171 491 375 1037 Elementary and secondary t e a c h e r s r e v e a l a l e s s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n : 29,7% of elementary t e a c h e r s and 26.9% of secondary t e a c h e r s scored below 40 on the: a t t i t u d e s c a l e * Approximately 20% of each teacher category scored more than 50 on the s c a l e * In; a l l school-based c a t e g o r i e s , about h a l f the respondents scored a t the middle l e v e l , but the p r i n c i p a l s a t both elementary and secondary and the secondary support personnel had more than one t h i r d o f t h e i r number who score d more than 50. The Chi-Sguare f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between A t t i t u d e and P o s i t i o n was 130.61 (p<,001). b) A t t i t u d e and Experience. Years of experience was grouped using the f i r s t d i g i t of the a c t u a l number of years of 48 Experience. This r e s u l t e d i n f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : <10 years, 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and >30 ye a r s . The a c t u a l range of these years were 1 to 38, The b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of these two f a c t o r s produced a Goodman and K r u s k a l 1 s Gamma =.201 (p<.001). Table 13 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Experience and A t t i t u d e : Frequencies and Percentages Years A t t i t u d e Score Ranqe Frequency Percen of per of Experience <30 40-49 50-60 Cateqory T o t a l <10 20. 2 51.1 28.7 470 45.3 10-19 12.3 47.3 40.4 332 32.0 20-29 15.3 40.0 44.7 190 1813 30 + 13.3 40.0 46.7 45 4.4 % of T o t a l 16.5 47.3 36.2 100.0 Frequencies 171 491 375 1037 Table 13 i n d i c a t e s a s t r o n g move to a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n from t h a t of respondents who have l e s s than 10 years o f experience to those who have 10-19 years. Those who remain i n the p r o f e s s i o n f o r more than 30 years have a s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n than any other group* c) A t t i t u d e and I s o l a t i o n . R e s u l t s g i v e n i n Table 14 i n d i c a t e t h a t there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between A t t i t u d e and I s o l a t i o n * 4 9 Table 14 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f I s o l a t i o n and A t t i t u d e : Frequencies and Percentages Sense A t t i t u d e score Range Frequency Percent of per of I s o l a t i o n <30 40-49 50-60 Cateqory T o t a l N Not i s o l a t e d 19.3 47.4 33. 3 57 5.6 Somewhat 15. 4 55.6 29.0 162 16.0 Co n s i d e r a b l y 17.4 45,7 36.8 505 49.9 S e r i o u s l y 14.2 46.0 39.8 289 28.5 % of T o t a l 16.3 47.5 36,2 100.0 Frequencies 165 481 367 1013 d) A t t i t u d e and Education. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two f a c t o r s was expected to be s t r o n g ; Gamma =,;399 was s i q n i f i c a n t (p<.001). Table 15 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n i n c r e a s e s d i r e c t l y with i n c r e a s i n q l e v e l of education: 75,0% of those with a doctorate and 55.4% of those with a masters deqree scored i n the very p o s i t i v e : category of a t t i t u d e , while only 23,9% of those without a degree f e l t a strong p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e . • 50 Table 15 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Ed u c a t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and Percentages L e v e l A t t i t u d e Score Eanqe Frequency Percent of per of Education <30 40-49 50-60 Cateqory T o t a l N High School 22. 1 54,. 0 23.9 113 11.1 Bachelors 19.6 50.6 29.8 627 61,4 Masters 6.3 38.3 55. 4 269 26:3 Doctorate 8.3 16.7 75.0 12 1.2 % of T o t a l 16.3 47. 3 36.4 100*0 Frequencies 166 483 372 1021 — — — — — »rf e) A t t i t u d e and Dissemination. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e and frequency of askinq f o r or q i v i n q out i n f o r m a t i o n was q u i t e s t r o n q (Gamma=,482, p<.001). Table 16 i n d i c a t e s t h a t of those who ask f o r or give out i n f o r m a t i o n more than once a day, 67.8% have a very strong p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards i n f o r m a t i o n * while of those who seek or provide i n f o r m a t i o n l e s s than once a month, 43.7% scored i n the lowest category o f a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n . 51 Table 16 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Dissemination and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and Percentages Frequency of D i s s emination A t t i t u d e <30 Score 40-49 Range 50-60 Frequency per Cateqory Percent of T o t a l Less than 1/mon 43. 7 47. 1 9. 2 87 8.5 1/mon 25* 8 53.6 20.5 151 14.8 1/week 16.9 55.1 28.0 332 32.4 1/day 8.5 48.1 43.5 283 27.6 More than 1/day 5. 3 26. 9 67.8 171 16.7 % of T o t a l F requencies 1.6. 2 166 47.5 487 36.2 371 1024 100.0 Information Seeking Behavior Purposes Rank Order of Purposes.' The q u e s t i o n n a i r e l i s t e d f i f t e e n purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n and asked respondents t o i n d i c a t e how o f t e n (1=seldom or never, 2=sometimes, 3=frequently) they souqht i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each purpose* The items i n t h i s s e c t i o n were developed from responses t o an open-ended q u e s t i o n i n the p i l o t study. Table 17 i n d i c a t e s the means and rank order of purposes i n the f i n a l study* 52 Table 17 Purposes: Means and Bank Order Bank Purpose Mean 1 F i n d i n g New M a t e r i a l s 2; 51 2 Developing New M a t e r i a l s 2.31 3 P r o f e s s i o n a l Development 2.25 4 Students with Problems 2. 21 5 Curriculum Development 2. 18 6 awareness of Trends 2. 13 7 E v a l u a t i o n 2i 08 8 F i n d i n g New sources. Experts 2.06 9 F a c t s f o r Classroom Use 2.06 10 Teaching Techniques 2. 05 11 M o t i v a t i o n 2.01 12 D e c i s i o n Makinq 1. 93 13 P u b l i c B e a c t i o n 1 .86 14 Classroom Management 1.77 15 W r i t i n g Beports, A r t i c l e s 1. 55 Th i s rank o r d e r i n g of purposes may be of value t o those i n charge of designing i n - s e r v i c e programs f o r an e d u c a t i o n a l community; I t would be s e n s i b l e t o a d m i n i s t e r t h i s guestion t o a p a r t i c u l a r p o p u l a t i o n before d e s i g n i n g programs. P o s i t i o n E f f e c t s on Purjaoses.. In the p i l o t study the f i f t e e n purposes; were analyzed with p o s i t i o n as the independent v a r i a b l e ; For only one purpose, " f i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s " , was there a s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) r e l a t i o n s h i p with P o s i t i o n . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s was performed on the data i n the f i n a l study* In c o n t r a s t to the p i l o t study r e s u l t s , P o s i t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.001) f o r a l l purposes. Table. 18 g i v e s the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s when a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i s performed* S c h e f f e ' s p a i r - w i s e comparisons r e v e a l the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between p o s i t i o n means. 53 Table 18 E f f e c t of P o s i t i o n on Purposes: Means, S i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s between Means Purposes F** 1 P o s i t i o n 2 Means*** 3 4 Sig.Comp . * 1, Teaching techniques 11.0 2. 13 1.86 2. 16 2. 07 (2-4,1,3) 2. F i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s 9.9 2. 53 2,54 2,60 2. 28 (4-1,2,3) 3. F a c t s f o r classroom 12. 0 2. 11 2.26 1.87 1. 95 (3-il,2) (4-2) 4, Awareness <l of t r e n d s 17. 1 1. 99 1 .99 2.36 2. 24 (1,2-3,4) 5. M o t i v a t i o n 5. 9 2. 10 1 .86 2. 07 2. 03 (2^-3,1) 6. Curriculum development 5. 1 2. 08' 2.15 2.24 2. 33 (1-4) 7. Developing new m a t e r i a l s : 4. 8 2. 32 2.39 2.35 2, 14 (4-3,2) 8, E v a l u a t i o n 19. 8 2. 01 1,89 2. 17 2. 40 (2-3,4) (1,3-4) 9. F i n d i n g new sources 16.5 1. 93 2. 10 2.29 1. 89 (4,1-2,3) (2-3) 10, P r o f e s s i o n a l development 18.6 2. 18 2.09 2.51 2. 24 (2,1,4-3) 11. D e c i s i o n making 13. 8 1. 87 1,76 2.05 2, 15 (2,1-3,4) 12. Classroom management 9.5 1. 87 1 .59 1.74 1, 91 (2-1,4) 13. W r i t i n g re p o r t s 12.7 1. 43 1 .44 1.68 1. 74 (1,2-3,4) 14. Students • with problem 11.9 2. 36 2. 00 2.24 2. 27 (2-3,4,1) 15,. P u b l i c r e a c t i o n 29. 5 1. 71 1.67 2.00 2. 22 (2,1-3,4)(3- 4) •Within each set of parentheses, each p o s i t i o n number on the l e f t s i d e of the dash i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each p o s i t i o n on the r i g h t side of the dash. A l l s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) pai r - w i s e comparisons are rep o r t e d . A l l comparisons are ordered from lower means to higher means; * * F - r a t i o s r e p o r t e d are a l l s i g n i f i c a n t , p<001. *** P o s i t i o n s are 1. Elementary t e a c h e r s and support p e r s o n n e l , 2; Secondary t e a c h e r s and department heads, 3. Elementary and secondary p r i n c i p a l s and d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and 4. D i s t r i c t and secondary support personnel; T h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s the complexity of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f o u r p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s and the purposes f o r 54 seeking i n f o r m a t i o n * Nearly every purpose r e v e a l s a unique o r d e r i n g o f means and patt e r n of s i q n i f i c a n t comparisons. Sources Rank Order of Sources* Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r frequency of use (1 = never, 2=rarely* 3=sometimes, 4=frequently) of t h i r t e e n p o s s i b l e sources of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Table 19 Sources: Means and Rank Orders Source Mean Sank Orders i n two s t u d i e s Hood (of 18) F i n a l T o f 1 3 ) 1. Workshops,courses seminars 2. 65 13 6 2. Conv e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a q u e s 3,* 50 1 1 3. N o t e s , f i l e s , b o o k s i n my o f f i c e 3.32 6 + 2* 2 4. a b s t r a c t s and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s 2.23 18 10 5. School or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s 2.69 10 5 6. E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s 2. 64 5 7 7. Experts from o u t s i d e 2.30 8 9 8. Books or textbooks 3.21 14 3 9,. Conventions i or meetings 2.45 12 8 10. P u b l i c or u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s 2.00 17 11 11. Computer or r e t r i e v a l systems 1. 30 ** 13 12,. Research r e p o r t s d i s s e r t a t i o n s 1. 80 ** 12 13. Curriculum m a t e r i a l s 2.79 15 4 **item was not i n c l u d e d i n the study •two items were merged f o r f i n a l study 55 Table 19 re c o r d s the mean f o r each item i n the presen t study and the rank order of these items i n both the Hood and B l a c k w e l l (1976) Market Study and t h i s study. E f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Sources. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e o f each source was performed using P o s i t i o n as the independent v a r i a b l e * For each of the eleve n sources i n which the F value was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05), the Sc h e f f e method of m u l t i p l e comparisons was a p p l i e d to i d e n t i f y where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d . Table 20 gives the means f o r each of t h e . f o u r p o s i t i o n groups, the F - r a t i o and the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s on each source. For f o u r o f these sources, teachers (elementary and secondary) are very d i f f e r e n t from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support p e r s o n n e l groups,. In each of these c a s e s — - j o u r n a l s , conventions, computer r e t r i e v a l and r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s — t e a c h e r s make s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s use of the source. In e i g h t of the t h i r t e e n s o u r c e s , secondary teachers and department heads are the l e a s t frequent users, o n l y f o r "books and textbooks" are secondary t e a c h e r s the.most frequent users of a source* 56 Table 20 E f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Sources: Means* F - r a t i o s and Means Comparisions Sources P o s i t i o n s * * * F Comparisons 1 2 3 4 1.Workshops, courses 2. 63 2.46 2, 75 2. 69 8.40** (2-1,4,3) 2.Conversations with c o l l e a g 3. 50 3,35 3, 50 3. 47 2.64** 3. B o o k s , f i l e s i n my o f f i c e 3. 18 3. 29 3. 34 3. 18 4*Abstracts and b i b l i o g r a p h y 1. 99 2.0 9 2, 32 2. 15 6.13** (1,2-3) 5 . S c h o o l , d i s t . l i b r a r i e s 3. 02 2, 53 2. 55 2. 41 23.89** (4,2,3-1) 6.Educational j o u r n a l s 2. 47 2*40 2. 92 2. 74 23.12** (2,1-4,3) 7.Experts o u t s i d e 2. 15 2,06 2, 53 2. 36 17.91** (2-4,3) (1-3) 8, Textbooks, books 3. 23 3,4 0 3. 08 2, 91 14. 78** (4-1,2) (3-2) 9.Conventions, meetings 2. 31 2. 26 2. 63 2. 56 15.69** (2,1-4,3) 10.Public or 0 n i v i l i b r a r y 2. 00 U 9 0 2; 02 1. 99 11.Computer r e t r i e v a l 1. 13 1,21 1. 45 1. 39 15.73** (1,2-4,3) 12*Research, theses 1. 62 1,60 2. 03 1, 94 21.87** (2,1-4,3) 13.Curriculum m a t e r i a l s 3. 01 2,58 2. 64 2. 87 17.21** (2,3-4,1) *** P o s i t i o n s are 1. Elementary t e a c h e r s and support p e r s o n n e l , 2. Secondary t e a c h e r s and department heads, 3. School and d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 4. D i s t r i c t and secondary support personnel. ** p<.001 A d m i n i s t r a t o r s (elementary, secondary and d i s t r i c t ) are the most fr e q u e n t users of ten of the t h i r t e e n sources. 57 E f f e c t s of I s o l a t i o n on Sources. For only f o u r sources was I s o l a t i o n a s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) f a c t o r ; When S c h e f f e ' s comparison t e s t s were a p p l i e d , only three sources had s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons between means. In each case the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t was between those who f e l t " c o n s i d e r a b l y 1 1 i s o l a t e d and those who d i d not f e e l i s o l a t e d at a l l ; The mean scor e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n each case those who f e l t "extremely" i s o l a t e d r e p o r t e d more frequent use of sources than d i d those who f e l t " c o n s i d e r a b l y " i s o l a t e d ; E f f e c t s of Education on Sources. When a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on sources with Education as the independent v a r i a b l e , e i g h t of the F - r a t i o s were s i q n i f i c a n t (p<.05). Education was o r i g i n a l l y d i v i d e d i n t o four groups a c c o r d i n q t o the h i g h e s t earned degree. Only 12 respondents had a d o c t o r a t e , so t h i s category was combined with the masters c a t e g o r y . Group 1 i n c l u d e s a l l those with no u n i v e r s i t y degree, group 2 i n c l u d e s those with a b a c h e l o r ' s degree; and group 3 i s the post-graduate degree group; The f i r s t f o u r sources—workshops and seminars, c o n v e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s , notes and f i l e s i n my o f f i c e and a b s t r a c t s and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s - — and source 8 — books and t e x t s — a l l had F - r a t i o s of l e s s than 2.0 and p r o b a b i l i t i e s g r e a t e r than p=,05. Table 21 r e p o r t s the e i g h t sources with s i g n i f i c a n t F- r a t i o s and the s i g n i f i c a n t p a i r - w i s e comparisons r e v e a l e d when Sch e f f e ' s t e s t was a p p l i e d . 58 Table 21 E f f e c t s of Education on Sources: S i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s and Mean Comparisons " — — ——-•——— — — — — — n —— — Source E d u c a t i o n * * * . F Sig,Comparisons 1 2 3 5. School or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s 2.93 2*71 2,: 44 13.75** (3-2,1) 6. E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s 2. 57 2.51 2, 89 20.24** (2,1-3) 7. Experts o u t s i d e 2. 19 2.20 2. 41 6.21* 9. Conventions meetings 2.27 2.39 2, 55 6,57* (1,2-3) 10* U n i v e r s i t y or p u b l i l i b s . 1.84 1,193 2. 11 5.65* (1,2-3) 11. Computer r e t r i e v a l 1. 12 1.21 1. 49 25.?5** (1,2-3) 12. Research or theses 1. 64 1.68 2. 03 21.47** (1,2-3) 13. Curriculum m a t e r i a l s 3.00 2.78 2. 64 7.55** (3,2-1) *** Education l e v e l s are 1.No degree, 2. Bachelor's degree, an 3. Masters' degree or d o c t o r a t e . ** p<.001 * p<,05 The post-graduate group, those with master's degrees or do c t o r a t e s , are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the other two groups i n s i x sour c e s , and f o r f i v e of those s i x , they a re. the most frequent users of the sources. Curriculum m a t e r i a l s and school or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s are used l e a s t by t h i s group. 59 E f f e c t s of Experience on Sources. Experience had very l i t t l e power i n e x p l a i n i n g v a r i a n c e i n Sources; The F - r a t i o s f o r t h r e e sources were s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05), but f o r two of these no s i g n i f i c a n t p a i r w i s e comparisons were found when S c h e f f e ' s t e s t was applied,; The s i g n i f i c a n t p a i r w i s e comparison was f o r the use of e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s , and the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t was between those with l e s s than 10 years experience and both groups with more than 20 years of experience; T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t educators l e a r n about j o u r n a l s and i n c r e a s e t h e i r use of them as a f u n c t i o n of i n c r e a s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l experience. E f f e c t s of Dissemination on Sources,. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on the 13 sources using D i s s e m i n a t i o n as the independent v a r i a b l e ; For ten of the sources. Dissemination was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05)..The S c h e f f e t e s t was a p p l i e d t o a l l sources with s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s , Table 22 g i v e s the means of each source f o r the f i v e l e v e l s of D i s s e m i n a t i o n , the F - r a t i o s , and the s i g n i f i c a n t p a i r - w i s e comparisons. In a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons, group means i n c r e a s e from those who disseminate i n f o r m a t i o n l e a s t t o those who disseminate i t most* 60 T a b l e 22 E f f e c t s o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n on S o u r c e s : Means, F - s c o r e s and S i g n i f i c a n t Comparisons Source D i s s e m i n a t i o n Frequency*** F Sig.Comps. 1 2 3 4 5 1.Workshops, s e m i n a r s 2. 51 2. 63 2, 59 2. 61 2.78 2- 99* 2 , C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h c o l l e a g u e s 3. 00 3, 31 3. 47 3. 57 3,60 14. 02** (1-2345) 3 . N o t e s , f i l e s i n (2-45) my o f f i c e 3. 14 3. 21 3. 29 3. 23 3.37 4 . A b s t r a c t s , b i b l i o g r a p h i e s 1. 80 2. 03 2. 15 2. 17 2.34 5. 68**(1-345) 5 . D i s t r i c t , s c h o o l (2-5) l i b r a r i e s 2. 45 2. 68 2. 70 2. 70 2.64 6 . E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s 2. 09 2. 46 2. 54 2. 71 3.02 22. 62**(1-234-5) 7 . E x p e r t s o u t s i d e 2. 05 2, 09 2. 14 2. 40 2.53 11. 04**(123-45) 8.Textbooks o r books 3. 10 3. 25 3,. 28 3. 09 3.14 2. 75* 9,Conventions - i o r meetings 2. 21 2. 31 2. 36 2. 45 2.70 8. 88** (1234-5) 10,i U n i v e r s i t y , p u b . l i b r a r i e s i 1. 69 1. 97 2. 01 2. 02 2,01 2. 82* 11.Computer ! r e t r i e v a l 1. 06 1. 19 1. 21 1. 36 1. 47 9. 76**(123-5) 12.Research and (1-4) t h e s e s 1. 38 1, 70 1. 67 1. 84 2. 15 19. 01**(1-23-5) 1 3 . C u r r i c u l u m (1-4) m a t e r i a l s 2. 69 2. 78 2. 77 2. 78 2. 78 *** D i s s e m i n a t i o n groups a r e : 1. Les.s than once a month, 2; Once a month, 3. Once a week, 4. Once a day, and 5. More than once a day. ** p<. 001 * p<.05 E f f e c t s of A t t i t u d e on Sources; The r e s u l t s o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h Sources as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and A t t i t u d e as t h e independent v a r i a b l e were s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) f o r t e n o f t h e t h i r t e e n s o u r c e s . T a b l e 23 r e p o r t s t h e s e r e s u l t s . 61 Table 23 E f f e c t s of A t t i t u d e on Sources: Means, F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t Comparisons Sources A t t i t u d e I n t e r v a l s * * * F Sig*Comps. 3 4 5 1.Workshops and seminars 2. 46 2. 56 2. 78 16; 36** (3,4-5) 2.Conversations with c o l l e a g u e s 3. 24 3. 45 3. 55 10, 63** (3-4,5) 3.Notes, f i l e s i n my o f f i c e 3. 05 3. 24 3. 36 7. 59** (3-5) 4.Abstracts and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s 1. 85 2. 02 2. 41 30. 15** (3,4-5) 5 , D i s t r i c t or s c h o o l | l i b r a r i e s 2. 62 2. 65 2. 69 6;Educational j o u r n a l s 2. 02 2. 51 3. 02 105. 51** (3-4-5) 7.Experts i o u t s i d e 1. 85 2. 15 2. 58 58. 19** (3-4-5) 8-Textbooks or books 3. 15 3. 16 3. 23 9.Conventions or meetings 2,; 22 2,i 36 2. 59 16. 47** (3,4-5) 1 0 . U n i v e r s i t y or p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s 1. 69 1. 95 2. 14 16. 91 ** (3-4-5) 11.Computer r e t r i e v a l 1, 11 1. 22 1. 43 19. 05** (3,4-5) 12.Besearch or theses 1. 35 tl. 69 2. 07 59. 90** (3-4-5) 13.Curriculum mat e r i a l s 2. 70 2, 74 2. 84 * * * A t t i t u d e i n t e r v a l s are 3.scores between 15 and 39, 4.scores between 40 and 49, and 5.scores between 50 and 60A ** p<;001 M u l t i p l e Regression of Sources^ Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n analyses were performed t o i n v e s t i g a t e how much each o f the perso n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n t r i b u t e d t o the varia n c e o f freguency of use of the t h i r t e e n sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . 62 The p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents t h a t were used as independent v a r i a b l e s were f o r c e d to enter i n the f o l l o w i n g order: 1. Experience, 2. E d u c a t i o n , 3. P o s i t i o n , 4, I s o l a t i o n / D i s s e m i n a t i o n , 5, A t t i t u d e . Table 24 i n d i c a t e s the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s of i n c r e a s e i n R 2 f o r each of the t h i r t e e n s ources. F - r a t i o s f o r the i n c r e a s e i n E 2 f o r each of the v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d using an e r r o r term d e r i v e d from the f u l l - r a n k models Tables of the c o r r e l a t i o n s of sources and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents are provided i n Appendix G. Although Experience was the f i r s t f a c t o r i n each of the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s , i t e x p l a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of the v a r i a n c e i n only f i v e of the t h i r t e e n sources (3 at p<.01, 2 a t p<.05). For e i g h t sources the frequency of use does not change across years of experience* The three sources f o r which experience does e x p l a i n a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t part of the variance are the use of s c h o o l or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s , e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s , and r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s and d i s s e r t a t i o n s * Education was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r f o r e i g h t of the t h i r t e e n sources (p<.01). For s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s and f o r c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s , those with the l e a s t e d u c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g make the most use of the sources, f o r the s i x other sources frequency of use i n c r e a s e s as l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e s * Experience and Education are both r e l a t e d t o P o s i t i o n . They were f o r c e d t o enter before P o s i t i o n so t h a t any v a r i a n c e 63 accounted f o r by P o s i t i o n would not i n c l u d e the v a r i a n c e shared by the p r e v i o u s l y entered f a c t o r s . Because P o s i t i o n i s a c a t e g o r i c a l f a c t o r , orthogonal coding was used to p r o v i d e t h r e e c o n t r a s t s : C1 i s the c o n t r a s t between (a) elementary t e a c h e r s ( i n c l u d i n g elementary support personnel) and secondary t e a c h e r s ( i n c l u d i n g department heads) and (b) d i s t r i c t and s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s combined with d i s t r i c t and secondary support personnel; C2 c o n t r a s t s (a) elementary t e a c h e r s and (b) secondary t e a c h e r s ; and C3 c o n t r a s t s (a) d i s t r i c t and s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and (b) d i s t r i c t and secondary support p e r s o n n e l . A l l t h r e e : c o n t r a s t s were entered a t the same p r i o r i t y l e v e l so t h a t the most s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t would enter f i r s t i n the a n a l y s i s : Although Experience and Education had already accounted f o r some.of the v a r i a n c e . P o s i t i o n was s t i l l a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r (p<:01) f o r eleven of the t h i r t e e n sources; C1 was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r nine o f those, C2 f o r s i x , and C3 f o r three; D i s s e m i n a t i o n and I s o l a t i o n were entered at the next l e v e l . D i s s e m i n a t i o n , even though i t entered a f t e r t h r e e other f a c t o r s * s t i l l accounted f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the v a r i a n c e f o r eleven sources; In each case those who asked f o r or gave e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n are the most freguent users of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . I s o l a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r only t h r e e sources, and only one of these was a t p<-01. T a b l e 2<i M u l t i p l e Reqtession Sunoary Table o f S i g n i f i c a n c e T u i r t e o n sources by Six Personal F a c t D r s . Source of Variance 1 Wrksh. 2 Cnver. 3 O f f i c e Sources o U 5 Abstr. S.Lib. f Information 6 7 Ed.Jr. -Expert 8 Texts 9 Coven. 10 P.Lib. 11 Cnptr. 12 Resr;h 13 "arc. Experience .05 .01 .01 .05 .01 Education .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 P o s i t i o n .0 1 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .3 1 .01 Con. 1 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .0 1 .01 .01 .31 Con. 2 .05 .0 1 .01 .05 .05 .05 .01 Con. 3 .05 .0 1 .01 D i s s e a i n a t i D U .01 .01 .05 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 I s o l a t i o n .05 .01 .05 A t t i t u d e .01 .01 .01 .31 .01 .01 .31 .0 1 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 CUB. n* .065 .0b6 .035 .006 .102 .250 . 150 .060 .071 .055 .092 . 160 .070 65 The l a s t f a c t o r t o be entered was A t t i t u d e . From p r e v i o u s analyses i t was known that A t t i t u d e was r e l a t e d to a l l other personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except I s o l a t i o n * By h o l d i n g A t t i t u d e u n t i l a l l other f a c t o r s had entered the equation, t h e . s p e c i f i c amount of varia n c e accounted f o r by A t t i t u d e would not i n c l u d e that shared with other f a c t o r s - In s p i t e o f t h i s . A t t i t u d e was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r (p<.01) f o r a l l sources. In the e a r l i e r a nalyses the continuous s c o r e s on the a t t i t u d e , t e s t had been c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o three l e v e l s . In the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s the i n d i v i d u a l s c o r e s were used. The a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of frequency of use of sources, and the c o n s t r u c t t h a t i t measures i s separate and d i f f e r e n t from a l l the other p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note which sources are most • e x t e n s i v e l y ' e x p l a i n e d by these a n a l y s e s . The frequency of use of source 6, ' e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s ' , i s s i q n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the p e r s o n a l f a c t o r a t each l e v e l of the a n a l y s i s * At the other extreme, the use of ' f i l e s and notes i n my own o f f i c e * i s r e l a t e d s i q n i f i c a n t l y o n l y t o experience and d i s s e m i n a t i o n (p<*05) and a t t i t u d e (p<,01). F a c t o r A n a l y s i s of Sources., - The t h i r t e e n sources were i n t e r c d r r e l a t e d and f a c t o r analyzed usinq a p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s o l u t i o n with i t e r a t i o n s , an eigenvalue=1.0 c r i t e r i o n f o r f a c t o r e x t r a c t i o n , and varimax r o t a t i o n , Three f a c t o r s were e x t r a c t e d , and they account f o r 48,9% of the c o v a r i a n c e s among the t h i r t e e n sources.: Table 25 g i v e s the r o t a t e d f a c t o r loadings;. 66 Table 25 Rotated F a c t o r Loadings* of Sources Source F a c t o r s I I I I I I i l . Workshops, courses seminars 03 08 67 2. C o n v e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s 39 05 26 3. N o t e s , f i l e s , b o o k s i n my o f f i c e 54 10 03 4,4 A b s t r a c t s , i n d e x e s , b o o k l i s t s 40 45 -03 5. School or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s 54 17 -09 6. E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s 23 42 24 7. Experts o u t s i d e d i s t r i c t 07 34 38 8. Textbooks or books 60 06 -01 9. Conventions or meetings 02 17 69 ilO. U n i v e r s i t y or p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s 25 45 07 11. Computer r e t r i e v a l 01 6 1 09 12, Research r e p o r t s or d i s s e r t a t i o n s 10 70 20 13. C u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s 40 11 18 E x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e 25.4% 13,4% 10.1% * Decimals omitted. F a c t o r I . Close a t hand, t r a d i t i o n a l sources. T h i s f a c t o r i s i d e n t i f i e d with the f o l l o w i n g items ( f a c t o r l o a d i n g s i n parentheses): 8. Books and textbooks (.60) ; 3. Notes, f i l e s , books i n my o f f i c e (-54); 5. School and d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s (.54); 13. C u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s (.40); 2. Conversations with c o l l e a g u e s (.39); A b s t r a c t s , indexes, b o o k l i s t s and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s (.40). These are t r a d i t i o n a l , school-based sources. 67 Factor II.. Formal p r i n t sources, l e s s a c c e s s i b l e . T h i s f a c t o r had two very strong items: 12. Besearch r e p o r t s and d i s s e r t a t i o n s (.70); and 11. Computer or r e t r i e v a l systems (.61), and f o u r moderate ones: 10. P u b l i c or u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s (.45); 4. A b s t r a c t s , indexes, book l i s t s and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s (.45); 6. E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s (.34); 7. E x p e r t s o u t s i d e my s c h o o l or d i s t r i c t (.34). T h i s . f a c t o r i n c l u d e s l e s s a c c e s s i b l e p r i n t sources* F a c t o r I I I ^ Organized i n t e r p e r s o n a l . T h i s f a c t o r r e f l e c t s the t r a d i t i o n a l i n - s e r v i c e sources of i n f o r m a t i o n : 9. Conventions or meetings (.69); 1. Workshops, courses or seminars (*67); and 7,. Experts o u t s i d e my s c h o o l or d i s t r i c t (.38). Ei g h t of the e l e v e n sources loaded s t r o n g l y (>.50) on one f a c t o r and very,low (<.20) or n e g a t i v e l y on the o t h e r two* F i v e sources loaded moderately on two f a c t o r s , and one, e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s , loaded moderately on a l l t h r e e . C h a r a c t e r ! s t i e s of Sources Rank Order of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A f t e r respondents had i d e n t i f i e d the sources they used, they were asked to c o n s i d e r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources and the importance of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n choosing sources to use. E l e v e n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were l i s t e d and they were r a t e d as being 1=of no importance, 2=of l i t t l e importance, 3= g u i t e important, and 4= very important. Table 26 g i v e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e i r means and t h e i r rank order i n both the Hood and B l a c k w e l l (1976) study and the f i n a l study. 68 Table 26 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Means and Rank Orders C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Mean Rank Order Hood (of 14) F i n a l (of 11) 3. A u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e . • and o b j e c t i v e 3.58 9+15* 1 11. I s l i k e l y t o have i n f o r m a t i o n I need 3.58 1 2 7. Responsive t o my problem 3.49 3 3 1. Is near at hand and i u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e 3. 46 2 4 10. I s complete, and comprehensive 3.44 7+13* 5 8. Keeps me aware of new developments 3. 34 6 6 2. I s easy t o use 3.22 4 7 4. V a r i e t y of viewpoints, or d i s c u s s i o n 3. 13 8+11* 8 6. Leads to other sources 2.86 10 9 5, Access without i; i n v o l v i n g others 2.56 ** 10 9* I s f r e e or ; inexpensi v e 2.50 14 11 * two items i s HOod study combined t o one. ** item not i n the study; The mean l e v e l s of responses i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are important t o i n f o r m a t i o n seekers, Only t h r e e of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had means l e s s than 3, and none was below 2.5, the ne u t r a l , p o i n t on the s c a l e * The ranking of " f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " as the l e a s t important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c may i n d i c a t e a w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay f o r i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s . The f a c t t h a t "provides access without i n v o l v i n g o t h e r s " r a t e d second lowest seems to i n d i c a t e that a human i n t e r c e d e r , a " l i n k e r " , i s not seen as a problem by most i n f o r m a t i o n seekers. 69 f E f f e c t s of Position on Characteristics* Position was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.001) f o r two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : "keeps me aware of new developments" and " i s free or inexpensive". Awareness was least important for elementary teachers and elementary support personnel, and most important f o r d i s t r i c t administrators; low cost was least important to school and d i s t r i c t administrators, and more important f o r elementary and secondary teachers* For five other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the F-ratios were s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.Q5), but for two of these no s i g n i f i c a n t pair-wise comparisons were found when Scheffe's test was applied* i n two of the three other cases, " i s near at hand and usually available" and " i s easy to use", were most important to elementary teachers and support personnel and least important to school and d i s t r i c t administrators while f o r " i s authoritative, accurate, r e l i a b l e and objective" the positions were reversed* E f f e c t s of Attitude on Characteristics* Attitude: was s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.001) related to eight of the eleven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s * Table 27 gives the means by the three attitude groups, the s i g n i f i c a n t F-scores and the s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) contrasts between means as i d e n t i f i e d by Scheffe's test. 70 Table 27 E f f e c t s of a t t i t u d e on C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Means, F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t Comparisons C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A t t i t u d e I n t e r v a l s * F Sig.Comps. 3 4 5 1-Near at hand, a v a i l a b l e 3. 46 3,. 49 3. 42 2,; Easy to use 3. 26 3. 26 3. 16 3 . A u t h o r i t a t i v e , r e l i a b l e , o b j e c t i v e 3. 41 3. 53 3. 73 12; 31** (3,4-5) 4.Variety of viewpoints or d i s c u s s i o n 2. 87 3. 07 3. 33 19. 22** (3-4-5) 5.Access without i n v o l v i n g o t h e r s 2. 60 2, 55 2. 56 6*Leads t o other sources 2. 60 2. 82 3. 05 17. 29** (3-4-5) 7,Responsive t o imy problem 3. 33 3. 45 3. 61 9,. 62** (3,4-5) 8,:Awareness of new developments 3. 01 3. 27 3. 61 48. 73** (3-4-5) 9.1s f r e e or in e x p e n s i v e 2. 67 2. 59 2. 29 12. 60** (5-4,3) 0.Complete, up-to-date comprehensive 3. 23 3. 41 3. 58 12. 15** (3-4-5) 11.1s l i k e l y t o have i n f o r m a t i o n I need 3. 45 3, 54 3. 68 7, 15** (3,4-5) * A t t i t u d e i n t e r v a l s are 3. Scores from 15 t o 39, 4. Scores from 40 t o 49, and 5. Scores from 50 t o 60. ** p<.01 In a l l but one of the cases with s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s , those whose a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n score was l e s s than 40 r a t e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as l e a s t important. The e x c e p t i o n was " f r e e I or i n e x p e n s i v e " , where the order was r e v e r s e d . In a l l cases with s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s * the group s c o r i n g 50 or more on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from both other groups i n t h e i r assessment of the importance of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources; Problems Rank Order of Problems; This s e c t i o n analyzes the problems 71 f a c e d by educators i n seeking and u s i n g e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Only " f i n d i n g time t o look f o r i n f o r m a t i o n " seemed to present a r e a l problem, as i t was the only item with a mean higher than 2.5, the n e u t r a l p o i n t on the s c a l e . " G e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n g u i c k l y enough" had the second h i g h e s t mean, which suggests t h a t there i s some concern f o r speed of r e t r i e v a l when i n f o r m a t i o n i s sought. Table 28 g i v e s the problems, the means i n t h i s study and the rank order of the means. Table 28 Problems: Means and Hank Order Hank Problems Means 1 F i n d i n g time to look f o r o r read' i n f o r m a t i o n 2,i 94 2 G e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n g u i c k l y enough 2.43 3 G e t t i n g up-to-date m a t e r i a l 2-35 4 Understanding r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s and s t a t i s t i c s 2. 16 5 L o c a t i n g s u i t a b l e . s o u r c e s 2.16 6 F i n a n c i a l c o s t s 2.16 7 Lack of q u a l i f i e d help t o l o c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n 2,05 8 Making i n f o r m a t i o n understood by others il.99 9 R e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s 1.99 10 Knowing how t o use indexes, ERIC 1.72 E f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Problems.. Only two of the comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) when P o s i t i o n and Problems were compared* For both, "making i n f o r m a t i o n understandable t o o t h e r s " and " r e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s " , secondary teachers and department heads r e p o r t e d the l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y and secondary and d i s t r i c t support personnel r e p o r t e d a 72 s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . Since the secondary teacher group i s the one t h a t uses most sources l e a s t , and s i n c e the secondary and d i s t r i c t support personnel are.the ones who t r y to provide the e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n the t e a c h e r s do not l o c a t e . f o r themselves, these r e s u l t s were not s u r p r i s i n g . E f f e c t s of A t t i t u d e on Problems. A t t i t u d e proved to be a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of problem importance with h a l f the items having s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s (p<.05). When S c h e f f e ' s t e s t was a p p l i e d to these comparisons, f o r only t h r e e p r o b l e m s — " l o c a t i n g s u i t a b l e s o u r c e s " , "knowing how t o use indexes, ERIC, e t c ; " , and "understanding r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s or s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s " — d i d those with a t o t a l a t t i t u d e . score >50 have s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower means ( i n d i c a t i n g l e s s d i f f i c u l t y ) than those who scored below 40 on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e * Your " i d e a l ^ System^ An open-ended q u e s t i o n was posed on the l a s t page o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e which asked f o r a p e r s o n a l statement of an " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n system. To encourage b o l d t h i n k i n g , the q u e s t i o n was q u a l i f i e d with the phrase : "assuminq u n r e s t r i c t e d f i n a n c i n g and t e c h n i c a l know-how". Though some i n d i v i d u a l s f e l t t h a t these assumptions were u n r e a l i s t i c (one r e p l i e d , "I don't b e l i e v e i n the tooth f a i r y ! M ) , 673 respondents, more than h a l f , d i d r e p l y to the question,; T h i s item was i n c l u d e d so t h a t respondents could mention the s e r v i c e s and sources t h a t they p e r c e i v e as v a l u a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y any items t h a t had not been i n c l u d e d i n the r e s t o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Responses from the f i r s t two hundred r e t u r n e d 73 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were l i s t e d and an e m p i r i c a l l y - d e r i v e d s e t of c a t e g o r i e s was developed. A l l responses were then t a b u l a t e d using the c a t e g o r i e s developed and adding new ones when r e q u i r e d . Twenty-seven c a t e g o r i e s were used, i n c l u d i n g " s a t i s f i e d " f o r those who s t a t e d t h a t they were s a t i s f i e d with the i n f o r m a t i o n system as i t e x i s t e d now i n t h e i r areas. The l i s t and the number of respondents whose " i d e a l " system i n c l u d e d each category are given i n Table 29. Table 29 Responses to Your " i d e a l " System Rank Category # of responses 1 Computer r e t r i e v a l and/or ERIC 204 2 Improved d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s 136 3 Improved s c h o o l l i b r a r i e s 115 4 Time to seek and use i n f o r m a t i o n 108 5 Courses, workshops 90 6 Information personnel i n d i s t r i c t 79 7 C o n s u l t a n t s (experts) 65 8 Telephone access to i n f o r m a t i o n 57 9 TV or v i d e o tapes 57 10 Information personnel i n s c h o o l 52 11 O n i v e r s i t y involvement 45 12 Conferences or meetings 30 13 C o l l e c t i o n s of m a t e r i a l s 29 14 P e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n seeker 26 15 B e t t e r access to p h o t o c o p i e r s 24 16 P r o v i n c i a l c l e a r i n g h o u s e 24 17 Indexes of m a t e r i a l s a v a i l a b l e 24 18 Access to more magazines and j o u r n a l s 22 19 Money f o r t r a v e l , books 20 20 V i s i t s to other t e a c h e r s . . 18 21 P r o v i n c i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f s e r v i c e 15 22 L i s t of e x p e r t s 11 23 E v a l u a t i o n of m a t e r i a l s 7 24 P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n involvement 7 25 Condensed r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s 6 26 Improved textbooks 1 S a t i s f i e d with t h i n g s as they are 17 74 As the t o t a l s i n d i c a t e , many of the respondents wanted improvement of a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g l i b r a r i e s (251 out of 673). More than 30% r e f e r r e d to "computers", "ERIC", or "automated r e t r i e v a l systems" i n t h e i r responses. There seemed to be an awareness of the new t e c h n o l o g i e s and a d e s i r e t o make use o f them. The l i s t o f c a t e g o r i e s with the corresponding f r e g u e n c i e s f a i l s to r e f l e c t the concern expressed by many of the respondents: More than 100 wrote f u l l pages, not j u s t of s u g g e s t i o n s , but a l s o of t h e i r concern f o r such i s s u e s as the incompetence of d i s t r i c t personnel, the apathy of teachers and i the l a c k of understanding of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . L i b r a r i a n s complained of teacher s k e p t i c i s m , c y n i c i s m and r e l u c t a n c e to provide i n p u t r e g a r d i n g new m a t e r i a l s or s e r v i c e s ; i n d u s t r i a l a r t s and music t e a c h e r s r e v e a l e d a profound sense, of i s o l a t i o n from o t h e r s doing the same k i n d of work. Many of the responses i n d i c a t e d a r e a l j d e s i r e f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n and a r e a l sense o f f r u s t r a t i o n i n g e t t i n g i t . Summary i The r e s u l t s of t h i s study have been organized and d i s c u s s e d under t h r e e major headings: (1) d e s c r i p t i o n of the user* (2) i n f o r m a t i o n seeking behavior, and (3) your " i d e a l " system. A g u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i s t r i b u t e d t o a random sample of 1,640 t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel a t the s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t l e v e l i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A usable r e t u r n of 1,037 was achieved, 75 Under the heading " d e s c r i p t i o n of the user*, s i x p e r s o n a l or p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s were i n v e s t i g a t e d ; p o s i t i o n , e x p e r i e n c e , i s o l a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n , d i s s e m i n a t i o n and a t t i t u d e . These f a c t o r s were examined s i n g l y and i n v a r i o u s combinations,; S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between p o s i t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e , p o s i t i o n and educat i o n , and p o s i t i o n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n : The a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e was analyzed and a t h r e e - l e v e l h i e r a r c h y was confirmed, a t t i t u d e was a l s o analyzed with r e l a t i o n t o the f i v e other p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s . H i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (pCiOOil) r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between a t t i t u d e and p o s i t i o n , a t t i t u d e and experience, a t t i t u d e and education* and a t t i t u d e and d i s s e m i n a t i o n ; There were f o u r major headings under the g e n e r a l t o p i c i n f o r m a t i o n seeking behavior: purposes, sources, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources, and problems i n l o c a t i n g and using i n f o r m a t i o n : Means and rank order of each item i n t h i s s e c t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d and r e p o r t e d ; A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed on purposes using p o s i t i o n as the independent v a r i a b l e , and f o r each s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) F - r a t i o ; , S c h e f f e ' s t e s t was a p p l i e d . Sources were analyzed i n the same way, using each of the p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s as the independent v a r i a b l e . For p o s i t i o n and sources there were ten of the t h i r t e e n sources with s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , f o r i s o l a t i o n only t h r e e , f o r ed u c a t i o n seven, f o r experience one, f o r d i s s e m i n a t i o n seven, and f o r a t t i t u d e ten; 7 6 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources and problems were both analyzed with p o s i t i o n and a t t i t u d e as separate independent v a r i a b l e s . The s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s were f u r t h e r examined by using S c h e f f e * s t e s t to l o c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means. There were f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between means when c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p o s i t i o n were analyzed, and seven when c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i t u d e were compared. For problems, on l y two s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s were found when p o s i t i o n was the independent v a r i a b l e ; when a t t i t u d e was the independent v a r i a b l e , f i v e of the ten sources had s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s . Responses to the open-ended qu e s t i o n about your " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n system were t a b u l a t e d and repo r t e d as f r e q u e n c i e s . 77 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e the p e r s o n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the users of i n f o r m a t i o n ; t h e i r purposes f o r se e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , the sources they use, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources t h a t are important t o them, and the problems they encounter i n seeking or using e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , an a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e , developed t o measure users* a f f e c t i v e response t o i n f o r m a t i o n , was developed and analyzed to determine the ex t e n t to which i t r e f l e c t e d a 'hierarchy* of growth and development. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed, p i l o t t e s t e d , r e v i s e d and mailed to a random sample of t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel i n the s c h o o l s and d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s o f education i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Responses from 1,037 educators were analyzed. P o s i t i o n and a t t i t u d e both had st r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n s with experience, e d u c a t i o n , and i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n . Sense of i i s o l a t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o p o s i t i o n or a t t i t u d e , but d i d d i f f e r from r e g i o n to r e g i o n , although not on a simple geographic d i s t a n c e f a c t o r . The f i f t e e n - i t e m s c a l e designed t o measure a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n was analyzed to determine whether a ' h i e r a r c h y ' o f 78 development and growth of a t t i t u d e c o u l d be confirmed. Although a f i v e - l e v e l taxonomy was not confirmed, a l e s s c o n c i s e , t h r e e - l e v e l h i e r a r c h y was confirmed* F i f t e e n p o s s i b l e purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n were r a t e d as to t h e i r importance to respondents. These r a t i n g s were used as a b a s i s f o r grouping the nine p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s i n t o f o u r c l a s s e s . In a d d i t i o n they were analyzed t o i d e n t i f y the e f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n on Purposes. A s i g n i f i c a n t and complex r e l a t i o n s h i p was r e v e a l e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s * T h i r t e e n sources of e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n were r a t e d on freguency of use. The r e s u l t s of a n alyses i n d i c a t e t h a t d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n groups do use d i f f e r e n t sources when they seek i n f o r m a t i o n * I t a l s o showed t h a t while the use of n e a r l y a l l sources i n c r e a s e s with post-graduate u n i v e r s i t y study, t h e r e i s l i t t l e or ho d i f f e r e n c e between those who have no u n i v e r s i t y degree and those who have no more than a b a c h e l o r ' s degree* For only one source, " e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s " , d i d frequency of use change with i n c r e a s e d years of experience; but the r a t e o f d i s s e m i n a t i o n r e p o r t e d and the t o t a l score on the a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e were both d i r e c t l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o frequency of iise of sources. M u l t i p l e r e q r e s s i o n a n a l yses of sources extended and i l l u m i n a t e d these b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A t t i t u d e , d i s s e m i n a t i o n and p o s i t i o n (measured using t h r e e planned c o n t r a s t s ) were s i g n i f i c a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g the v a r i a n c e : o f n e a r l y a l l sources* Experience, education and i s o l a t i o n were each s i g n i f i c a n t f o r r e l a t i v e l y fewer sources, and at a lower l e v e l 79 of s i g n i f i c a n c e * Three f a c t o r s of s o u r c e s , i d e n t i f i e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , were: 1) e a s i l y accessed, t r a d i t i o n a l p r i n t sources, 2) f o r m a l , l e s s a c c e s s i b l e s o u r c e s , and 3) organized i n t e r p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s , t r a d i t i o n a l to i n s e r v i c e programs. Eleven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n f o r m a t i o n sources were r a t e d by respondents a c c o r d i n g to importance* A l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were considered important by a l l groups ( a l l means >2.5, the midpoint of the s c a l e ) . L e a s t important were " i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " and " p r o v i d e s access without i n v o l v i n g o t h e r s " ; most important were " i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , accurate* r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e " and " i s l i k e l y t o have the i n f o r m a t i o n I need". A t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n was h i g h l y r e l a t e d to importance of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Ten problems were r a t e d as to the d i f f i c u l t y they cause* Only one, " f i n d i n g time t o look f o r or read i n f o r m a t i o n " had a mean g r e a t e r than 2.5, the midpoint on the s c a l e . T h i s suggests t h a t respondents did not see most of the problems as b a r r i e r s to g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . P o s i t i o n was not a major f a c t o r i n e x p l a i n i n g the v a r i a n c e of problems, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t problems are i d i o s y n c r a t i c , r e l a t e d t o the l e v e l of use of sources or to p e r s o n a l s t y l e of users, but not to p o s i t i o n category. The f i n a l item on the ^questionnaire was an open-ended question a s k i n g f o r a p e r s o n a l statement of an " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n system* The 673. responses were t a b u l a t e d and r e p o r t e d as f r e q u e n c i e s , and 27 c a t e g o r i e s were developed; The most commonly c i t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an " i d e a l " i n f o r m a t i o n 80 systems were 1) computer r e t r i e v a l and/or ERIC, 2) improved d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s , 3) improved s c h o o l l i b r a r i e s , 4) time t o seek and use i n f o r m a t i o n , 5) courses and workshops, and 6) i n f o r m a t i o n personnel i n the d i s t r i c t . L i m i t a t i o n s T Because a l l the groups were randomly sampled, the r e s u l t s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e are g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the p o p u l a t i o n s they r e p r e s e n t , the t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel a t the s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t l e v e l i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia* The o v e r a l l usable response r a t e of 63% means t h a t the f i n d i n g s may be biased; i f t h i s i s so, respondents probably r e f l e c t the p o r t i o n of each group t h a t i s most l i k e l y t o use e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Hence the r e s u l t s of t h i s study may be biased toward a f a v o r a b l e prospect of i n f o r m a t i o n use. However, r e l a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s and comparisons between groups should s t i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y u s e f u l . The sample s i z e , 1,037, i s so l a r g e t h a t some r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l F - r a t i o s and t h e i r corresponding p r o p o r t i o n s of •explained* v a r i a n c e are s i g n i f i c a n t , o f t e n at p<.001 l e v e l s . However, even with a s m a l l e r sample s i z e , most of those would s t i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t at a p<.05 l e v e l or b e t t e r * Another l i m i t a t i o n , common to a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t u d i e s , i s the question of the v a l i d i t y of s e l f - r e p o r t . Since no other observations, or measurements were used i n the study, the o n l y data a v a i l a b l e i s t h a t provided by each person i n response to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e * T h i s l i m i t a t i o n may be of s p e c i a l concern i n 81 the r e p o r t i n g of frequency of d i s s e m i n a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and the r a t i n g of problems i n seeking or usinq i n f o r m a t i o n . When the a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e was analyzed usinq a cumulative (Guttman) s c a l e a n a l y s i s , three l e v e l s were confirmed. The i n a b i l i t y t o confirm a l l f i v e l e v e l s of the taxonomy (Krathwohl, 1964) may r e l a t e more to i n a p p r o p r i a t e design of some of the items than to a flaw i n the o r i g i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l h i e r a r c h y * Further v a l i d a t i o n of the a t t i t u d e s c a l e , and t e s t i n g of i t s h i e r a r c h i c a l n ature, i s d e s i r a b l e . C o n c l u s i o n s This s e c t i o n w i l l d e a l with the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the r e s u l t s of the study, with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e . t o the purposes of the study as s e t out i n Chapter I I . D e s c r i p t i o n of the User The f i r s t problem posed i n the study was t o measure the p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s of p o s i t i o n , years of experience, sense of i s o l a t i o n , l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n , and i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n , and to study some of t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P o s i t i o n * P o s i t i o n was the v a r i a b l e on which the sampling frame was based* The nine c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e d t e a c h e r s , department heads, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel from elementary and secondary s c h o o l s and from d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s . Using • p r o f i l e s ' of purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n , these n i n e groups were e m p i r i c a l l y c o l l a p s e d i n t o f o u r p o s i t i o n c a t e g o r i e s : 1) elementary t e a c h e r s and elementary support p e r s o n n e l , 2) 82 secondary t e a c h e r s and secondary department heads, 3) elementary, secondary and d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and 4) secondary and d i s t r i c t support p e r s o n n e l . E x p e r i e n c e ^ When the nine p o s i t i o n s were, c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with years of experi e n c e , i t was found t h a t more than h a l f the teachers and support personnel i n both the elementary and secondary s c h o o l s had l e s s than ten years of p r o f e s s i o n a l experience* At the other extreme, more than h a l f the d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have more than twenty years o f expe r i e n c e . I s o l a t i o n . The measure of sense of i s o l a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t very few of the respondents f e l t s e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d * When the responses were c o r r e l a t e d with the twelve school r e g i o n s , i t was obvious t h a t a c t u a l geographic d i s t a n c e from a l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n area was not the only f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the sense.of i s o l a t i o n of respondents. A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o t e a c h e r c e n t r e s , e d u c a t i o n a l l i b r a r i e s , or e x t e n s i v e i n - s e r v i c e programs may g i v e teachers a f e e l i n g t h a t they are not i s o l a t e d from e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n sources. Education* The l e v e l of educa t i o n was h i g h l y r e l a t e d t o p o s i t i o n , Between 20-30% of elementary t e a c h e r s and support personnel have no u n i v e r s i t y degree, while more than 60% of secondary p r i n c i p a l s and d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have at l e a s t two degrees. 83 D i s s e m i n a t i o n . The s e l f - r e p o r t of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with p o s i t i o n . D i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s viewed themselves as being asked f o r or g i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n more than once each day. More than t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of t e a c h e r s , i n c o n t r a s t , r e p o r t t h a t they are asked f o r or qi v e i n f o r m a t i o n once a week or l e s s . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s e d u c a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n i s p a r t l y a r e s u l t o f h i s years of experience and h i s l e v e l of ed u c a t i o n , His i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i n q p r a c t i c e s may be both a cause and a r e s u l t of the p o s i t i o n he ho l d s ; Some jobs require.more response to q u e s t i o n s or the q i v i n q of i n f o r m a t i o n , but at the same time a person's d i s s e m i n a t i n g h a b i t s may i n f l u e n c e whether or not he i s o f f e r e d t h a t k i n d o f p o s i t i o n * A t t i t u d e . The : p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r of a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n was measured on a f i f t e e n item s c a l e which was s t r u c t u r e d to r e p r e s e n t the f i v e l e v e l s of Krathwohl's taxonomy. T o t a l s c o r e on t h i s t e s t was c o r r e l a t e d with the f i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l and pe r s o n a l f a c t o r s * As regards p o s i t i o n , the two d i s t r i c t c a t e g o r i e s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support, i n d i c a t e d a much more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n than a l l the other groups,* The two t e a c h i n g groups had a l a r g e percentage (27-30%) who had average s c o r e s l e s s than 30 on the s c a l e * Years of experience and a t t i t u d e r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to each other. As years o f experience i n c r e a s e , the percentage of respondents with s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s to i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o i n c r e a s e s * 84 Sense of i s o l a t i o n and a t t i t u d e were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d * The r e l a t i o n s h i p between education and a t t i t u d e was s t r o n g and p o s i t i v e . The percentage of those with one or two degrees who scored above f i f t y on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e was more than double the percentage of those without a degree who scored t h a t high. The same d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between d i s s e m i n a t i o n and a t t i t u d e . Of those who say they disseminate i n f o r m a t i o n more than once a day, two t h i r d s scored f i f t y or more on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e . Of those who disseminated i n f o r m a t i o n l e s s than once a month, over two f i f t h s scored l e s s than t h i r t y on the s c a l e * The a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e seems to be measuring an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r e s t i n and r e s p e c t f o r i d e a s about h i s s u b j e c t area and/or the e d u c a t i o n a l tasks h i s job i n v o l v e s . A high s c o r e on the s c a l e r e f l e c t s the kind of person who remains i n the p r o f e s s i o n f o r a long p e r i o d of time, who a c q u i r e s post-graduate degrees, and who i s promoted w i t h i n the p r o f e s s i o n . Information Seeking Behavior Other s e c t i o n s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were: designed to measure purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n , frequency of use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e i r use, and problems encountered i n seeking and using e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 85 Purposes; When the e f f e c t of p o s i t i o n on purposes was assessed, a very complex r e l a t i o n s h i p was r e v e a l e d between the four p o s i t i o n groups and the f i f t e e n purposes f o r se e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Each purpose had an i d i o s y n c r a t i c o r d e r i n g o f the p o s i t i o n groups and/or a d i f f e r e n t s e t of s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons when S c h e f f e ' s t e s t was a p p l i e d . . The i n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s would be v a l u a b l e f o r those who are planning i n - s e r v i c e programs f o r one or more of the p o s i t i o n groups. Sources; An examination of the frequency of use of sources i n d i c a t e d t h a t the f o u r major p o s i t i o n groups d i f f e r e d d i s t i c t l y i n t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n sources; Although t h e r e were a few sources t h a t showed s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s of use by the d i f f e r e n t groups, the r e l a t i o n s h i p here too was q u i t e complex. The p r e f e r e n c e s of each qroup should be of u t i l i t y to those concerned with e f f e c t i v e d e l i v e r y of i n f o r m a t i o n t o educators i n d i f f e r e n t job c a t e g o r i e s ; Secondary t e a c h e r s , f o r example, r a t e d workshops, c o u r s e s and seminars lower than any other group, while a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p o r t e d f r e q u e n t use of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r source: When a d m i n i s t r a t o r s plan i n - s e r v i c e proqrams, perhaps they tend t o use the sources which they themselves p r e f e r i n s t e a d o f l o o k i n g f o r sources t h a t might be more a c c e p t a b l e t o the groups to be served. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i s o l a t i o n and sources was not stronq ; i t was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r only f o u r sources..The most i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of t h i s a n a l y s i s was t h a t those who f e l t "extremely" i s o l a t e d r e p o r t e d more frequent use.of sources than 8 6 those who f e l t " c o n s i d e r a b l y " i s o l a t e d . T h i s seems to i n d i c a t e t h at those who f e l t "extremely" i s o l a t e d are those who f e e l a st r o n g d e s i r e t o use e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e put forward more e f f o r t to get i t , while those who f e e l " c o n s i d e r a b l y " i s o l a t e d may be r e v e a l i n g a sense of i s o l a t i o n from i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s of l e s s concern to them because they have no s t r o n g a t t r a c t i o n t o or sense of need f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n . When l e v e l of educ a t i o n and sources were analy z e d , e i g h t o f the t h i r t e e n sources had s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s and seven of those had s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t s between means. In s i x of these c o n t r a s t s , those with more than one degree were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the other two groups. Graduate s t u d i e s seems t o i n c r e a s e the re p o r t e d use of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n sources except c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s * For only one source was there a d i f f e r e n c e between those with no degree and those with a b a c h e l o r ' s degree. This suggests that undergraduate courses may p r e s e n t l y do very l i t t l e t o i n f l u e n c e students and f u t u r e t e a c h e r s t o use many sources o f e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . . The freguency of use of sources was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to years of experience f o r only one source, e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s . Those with more experience use t h i s source more. For no other source does freguency of use i n c r e a s e with years i n the f i e l d . I f t h e r e are any programs attempting t o persuade tea c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and support personnel t o look f o r h e l p f u l i n f o r m a t i o n , they are having no e f f e c t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between freguency of use of sources and 87 d i s s e m i n a t i o n was much more d i r e c t than t h a t between sources o r purposes and p o s i t i o n . For a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t comparisons, those who are asked f o r or g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n l e a s t make the l e a s t use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources: Frequency o f use of sources and a t t i t u d e , had the same s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e l a t i o n s h i p , Those with low t o t a l s cores on the a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e use the i n f o r m a t i o n sources l e a s t ; When m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s of sources was performed using a p r i o r i o r d e r i n g of the independent v a r i a b l e s , a g e n e r a l p i c t u r e o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between frequency of use of each source and the s i x per s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s developed. Experience. and ed u c a t i o n , althouqh they were entered i n t o the equation f i r s t and second, e x p l a i n e d s i q n i f i c a n t amounts of the variance f o r only f i v e and e i q h t o f the t h i r t e e n sources respe c t i v e l y , ; P o s i t i o n , as measured by t h r e e planned c o n t r a s t s , and d i s s e m i n a t i o n accounted f o r s i q n i f i c a n t amounts of the var i a n c e f o r most of the sources, I s o l a t i o n was s i q n i f i c a n t f o r only t h r e e sources. By f a r the s t r o n q e s t f a c t o r i n e x p l a i n i n q v a r i a n c e i n source use was a t t i t u d e , which, althouqh i t was entered i n t o the r e g r e s s i o n equation a f t e r a l l o t h e r independent v a r i a b l e s , e x p l a i n e d a s i q n i f i c a n t amount of v a r i a n c e f o r every source. Althouqh many of the st e p s i n the . r e q r e s s i o n were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the a c t u a l percentage of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d ranged from 5.5% to 25%; hence a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of varian c e i n the use of every source i s unexplained by these s i x p r e d i c t o r s . 88 F a c t o r a n a l y s i s of sources r e s u l t e d i n three o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s : 1) c l o s e a t hand, t r a d i t i o n a l p r i n t s o u r c e s , 2) l e s s a c c e s s i b l e p r i n t sources, and 3) t r a d i t i o n a l i n - s e r v i c e sources, both p r i n t and i n t e r p e r s o n a l . These r e s u l t s r e v e a l t h a t t h e r e are three q u i t e d i s t i n c t groups of sources and suggest t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n should be o f f e r e d to e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n more than one way; C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Eleven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources were r a t e d on importance to the user; A l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had means above the n e u t r a l p o i n t of the s c a l e . The rank o r d e r i n g of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h i s study was s i m i l a r to the rank o r d e r i n g of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the Hood & B l a c k w e l l (1976) study, except f o r item t h r e e , " I s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e " which was ranked f i r s t by the respondents i n t h i s study; In the Hood and B l a c k w e l l study, t h i s item was l i s t e d as two separate items, " i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e " and " i s o b j e c t i v e , , i m p a r t i a l , not b i a s e d " which ranked n i n t h and f i f t e e n t h r e s p e c t i v e l y . P o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h i s d i s c r e p e n c y i n c l u d e : the d i f f e r e n c e i n p o p u l a t i o n s (the Hood and B l a c k w e l l study i n c l u d e d s t a t e l e v e l educators, s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s and t h e i r a i d e s , and members of d i s t r i c t s c h o o l boards, as w e l l as l o c a l and d i s t r i c t teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ) ; some b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e between American and Canadian educators; or combining the two items may have produced a s i n g l e item with so many p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s t h a t no one would rank i t as unimportant. The low r a n k i n g of " i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " and "gives access without i n v o l v i n g o t h e r s " suggests t h a t users may 89 be prepared t o pay f o r some i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s , and that they would not f i n d a human i n t e r c e d e r unwelcome. A t t i t u d e was s i g n i f i c a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g the v a r i a n c e o f e i g h t of the eleven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In seven c a s e s , persons with a high p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o tended t o r a t e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as most important. Only f o r " i s f r e e or ine x p e n s i v e " was the order r e v e r s e d . The f i n a l major s e c t i o n was concerned with problems f a c e d by educators i n f i n d i n g and using i n f o r m a t i o n . " F i n d i n g time t o look f o r i n f o r m a t i o n " was the only problem with a mean g r e a t e r than the midpoint of the s c a l e * " G e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n q u i c k l y enough" ranked second as a problem, c o n f i r m i n g the: concern f o r speed of r e t r i e v a l d i s c u s s e d i n the Hood and B l a c k w e l l study. A t t i t u d e t o Information. The f i n a l purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which the a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e r e f l e c t e d !a h i e r a r c h y of a t t i t u d e development and growth. A t o t a l a t t i t u d e score was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each respondent, and an a n a l y s i s was performed to examine the v a l i d i t y o f the assumption t h a t a h i e r a r c h y e x i s t s . Analyses using the t o t a l score achieved on t h i s t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t a measure of a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n had been obtained t h a t r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y and l o g i c a l l y t o the other f a c t o r s i n the study. That t o t a l score was c o r r e l a t e d with the personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s of p o s i t i o n , experience, i s o l a t i o n , education and d i s s e m i n a t i o n , and i t a l s o e x p l a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e p o r t i o n s of the v a r i a n c e ( e x c l u s i v e of t h a t 90 e x p l a i n e d by other f a c t o r s ) when stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n was performed on the r e p o r t e d frequency of use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources. The s c a l e was c o n s t r u c t e d t o measure the f i v e stages of Krathwohl's Taxonomy of E d u c a t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s : the A f f e c t i v e Domain (1964). Mikulecky (1976) had been able t o v e r i f y the f i v e major stages of the taxonomy i n the a n a l y s i s of h i s MBEAM readin g a t t i t u d e t e s t . In t h i s study, a cumulative (Guttman) a n a l y s i s was performed on the responses to the f i f t e e n items of the a t t i t u d e s c a l e . Although i t was not p o s s i b l e t o confirm a l l f i v e s t a g e s , a t h r e e - l e v e l s c a l e was s t r o n g l y confirmed; Although a h i e r a r c h y of only three l e v e l s i s not p a r t i c u l a r y potent i n terms of u t i l i t y , i t poses promise and suggests t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s and r e w r i t i n g of the items c o u l d , perhaps, l e a d to a f o u r - or f i v e - l e v e l v a l i d a t e d h i e r a r c h y ; P o s i t i o n Groups as Information Seekers and Users One o f the important g o a l s o f t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c and unique f a c e t s of the f o u r major p o s i t i o n groups o f educators; I f the i n f o r m a t i o n about each group i s assembled, a v a l u a b l e d e s c r i p t i o n of each and i t s p r o f i l e of i n f o r m a t i o n - seeking behavior emerges,; 91 Elementary Teachers and Elementary Support P e r s o n n e l ^ The members of t h i s group have the fewest years of experience, the lowest l e v e l o f education and the second lowest reported l e v e l of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n . They a l s o have the second lowest scores on the a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e . T h e i r major purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n are " f i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s " , "students with problems", and "developing new m a t e r i a l s " . Regarding s o u r c e s , they r e p o r t most f r e q u e n t use of " c o n v e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s " , "books and textbooks", and they are the most f r e q u e n t users of " s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s " and " c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s " . The most important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources f o r the elementary t e a c h e r s and support personnel i n c l u d e " i s near a t hand and u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e " , " i s easy to use", and " i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " . T h e i r problems i n seeking and using i n f o r m a t i o n were s i m i l a r to the problems of the other three groups. Secondary Teachers and Secondary Department H e a d s T h e members of t h i s group were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r elementary c o u n t e r p a r t s . They had more years of experience, and a h i g h e r l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n . They f e l t the most i s o l a t e d of a l l the groups, and r e p o r t e d the lowest l e v e l of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n . T h e i r major purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n were " f i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s " , "developing new m a t e r i a l s " and " f a c t s f o r classroom use". For e i g h t of the f i f t e e n purposes, t h i s secondary group had the lowest means, and f o r o n l y two d i d they have the h i g h e s t . 92 A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n emerged from the r e s u l t s r e g a r d i n g sources used. Secondary teachers and department heads r e p o r t e d using "books and textbooks", " c o n v e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s " , and "books and f i l e s i n my o f f i c e " most f r e q u e n t l y . For e i g h t o f the t h i r t e e n sources, t h i s was the l e a s t f r e q u e n t user group. Only f o r "books and textbooks" d i d i t r e p o r t the h i g h e s t l e v e l of use. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources t h a t were important to the secondary t e a c h e r s r e v e a l e d no s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s from any other group. However, when compared to other groups with r e g a r d to problems f a c e d , they r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s d i f f i c u l t y r e g a r d i n g "making i n f o r m a t i o n understandable t o o t h e r s " and " r e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s " . Perhaps t h i s l a c k o f d i f f i c u l t y i s an a r t i f a c t of t h e i r minimal use of sources and t h e i r r e p o r t e d l a c k of di s s e m i n a t i n g a c t i v i t y . Elementary P r i n c i p a l s and V i c e p r i n c i p a l s , Secondary ££iS£i£als and Vice p.rincij3als^ and D i s t r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The t h i r d major group i n c l u d e s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s u p e r v i s o r s a t the elementary, secondary and d i s t r i c t l e v e l s . The range o f experience w i t h i n t h i s group i s q u i t e broad, with s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s havinq much l e s s experience than the d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , yet as a group i t i s the most experienced by a l a r g e margin. As a group i t p r o j e c t s a s t r o n g sense of i s o l a t i o n . The l e v e l o f education i s much higher than t h a t o f a l l other groups, and i n c l u d e s most of those i n the study who have more than one degree. The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p o r t the h i g h e s t l e v e l of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n ; and t h e i r a t t i t u d e to 93 i n f o r m a t i o n i s h i g h l y f a v o r a b l e — v e r y c l o s e to t h a t o f the support personnel. The major purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n are " f i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s " , " p r o f e s s i o n a l development", "awareness of new t r e n d s " , and "developing new m a t e r i a l s " . They were the l e a s t i n t e r e s t e d i n " f a c t s f o r classroom use" and scored h i g h e s t on f o u r purposes, i n c l u d i n g "teaching techniques". The sources they used most are " c o n v e r s a t i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s " , "books and f i l e s i n my o f f i c e " , and "books and textbooks". For the f i r s t two of these sources, and f o r e i g h t o t h e r s , the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s reported the g r e a t e s t use, and f o r none of the sources were they the l e a s t f r e g u e n t u s e r s . When c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources were examined, the most important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were "keeps me aware of new developments", and " i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e " . The l e a s t important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were " i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e " , " i s near at hand and u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e " and " i s easy to use". I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t h i s group has more access t o ways of d e l e g a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . Problems i n seeking and using i n f o r m a t i o n were no d i f f e r e n t f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s than f o r other groups. Secondary Supjaort Personnel and D i s t r i c t Support P e r s o n n e l . This group had the second lowest number o f years of e x p e r i e n c e , a moderate sense of i s o l a t i o n , and the second h i g h e s t l e v e l s of education and d i s s e m i n a t i o n . The secondary and d i s t r i c t support personnel had the h i g h e s t average s c o r e s on the a t t i t u d e - t o - 94 i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e , The main purposes f o r seeking i n f o r m a t i o n were " e v a l u a t i o n " , " c u r r i c u l u m development", " f i n d i n g new m a t e r i a l s " and "students with problems". Support personnel, along with the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e group, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t users of f o u r s o u r c e s : " e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s " , "conventions and meetings", "computer r e t r i e v a l " and " r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s , t h e s e s and d i s s e r t a t i o n s " . For both c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources and problems i n s e e k i n g and using e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , the support group was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the other p o s i t i o n groups. Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Study Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r study are d i v i d e d i n t o two main c a t e g o r i e s , p r a c t i c e and r e s e a r c h . Recgmmendations f o r P r a c t i c e P r e s e r v i c e . The r e s u l t s from t h i s study i n d i c a t e a r e a l need f o r an undergraduate course on the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l value to t e a c h e r s . Teachers should not enter the p r o f e s s i o n completely unaware of the r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c a l a dvice a v a i l a b l e to them through j o u r n a l s , indexes and b i b l i o g r a p h i e s , and computer r e t r i e v a l systems( ERIC, e t c . ) . I f educators are t o continue t o l e a r n and grow i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l competence, they must not remain i g n o r a n t of the i n f o r m a t i o n sources t h a t have been designed to serve t h e i r needs. 95 Undergraduate courses should be designed to make students aware of the so u r c e s , to s e n s i t i z e them to the s t o r e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n and knowledge a v a i l a b l e , and t o make them c o n s c i o u s of the value of c o n t i n u i n g t o l e a r n aoout t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n . The undergraduate years provide the time and place to reduce the apathy, s u s p i c i o n and h o s t i l i t y toward e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h (Line, 1971), and to f o s t e r p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward new i n f o r m a t i o n . I n s e r v i c e . There are s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study to d e s i g n i n g and d e l i v e r i n g i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . The g u e s t i o n n a i r e would be v a l u a b l e i n i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a pop u l a t i o n before d e s i g n i n g systems f o r d e l i v e r i n g e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The present use of so u r c e s , the important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources, and the problems i d e n t i f i e d i n seeking i n f o r m a t i o n are a l l important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n planning teacher or i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t r e s or other i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n systems. Used i n c o n j u n c t i o n with an instrument to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n needs, t h i s g u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n i t s present form or r e v i s e d to s u i t a s p e c i f i c d i s t r i c t or r e g i o n , would provide the ba s i s f o r a sound needs assessment instrument f o r proposed i n - s e r v i c e programs. 96 Recommendations f o r Research The r e s u l t s from s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e suggest f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h problems. 1. The measure of the sense of i s o l a t i o n needs f u r t h e r study to i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e i t . Some f a c t o r s that c o u l d he i n v e s t i g a t e d i n c l u d e the number and g u a l i t y o f l i b r a r i e s a v a i l a b l e , the number and q u a l i t y of resource personnel i n the ar e a , the extent of i n - s e r v i c e proqrams and t h e i r impact, and the g u a l i t y of the needs assessment t h a t precedes i n - s e r v i c e programs. 2. The s e l f - r e p o r t of d i s s e m i n a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s needs c o n f i r m a t i o n . I t i s important to i d e n t i f y n a t u r a l " l i n k e r s " i n i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n . The s e l f r e p o r t of d i s s e m i n a t i o n and the a t t i t u d e s c a l e i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e are a s t a r t i n g p o i n t , but t h e r e i s a need t o v e r i f y the v a l i d i t y of responses. Submitting those two ques t i o n s to the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of s t a f f s of s e v e r a l s c h o o l s and i n c l u d i n g a qu e s t i o n asking f o r the names of "those to whom you would go f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n " would provide simple v e r i f i c a t i o n or c o n t r a d i c t i o n of the s e l f r e p o r t . 3. E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s should be c a r r i e d out on whether a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n or frequency of use of s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n sources can be changed througn workshops, seminars, pamphlets or j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s . The r e l e v e n t items i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e would provide 'before 1 data; u n o b t r u s i v e measures of behavior or a s i m i l a r survey a d m i n i s t e r e d s e v e r a l months 9 7 l a t e r c ould measure the changes achieved by s p e c i f i c treatments. 4. The a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e i s p r o m i s i n g . The items should be c a r e f u l l y r e a n a l y z e d and poor items should be r e p l a c e d . h r e v i s e d v e r s i o n could be submitted to o t h e r , comparable p o p u l a t i o n s f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n . The p a r t i a l success of the a t t i t u d e s c a l e would suggest f u r t h e r experimentation i n the use of Krathwohl's taxonomy as a c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r the design of a t t i t u d e s c a l e s i n t h i s f i e l d . 98 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Hood, P. Pe r s o n a l communication, J u l y 5, 1977. 2. Computer Manuals Referenced B j e r r i n g , J . , Campbell, J . , Halm, J . , Morley, R. UBC:MVTAB ( M u l t i v a r i a t e Contingency T a b u l a t i o n s ) . Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: June, 1974. Brown, M.B. (Ed.). Biomedical Computer Programs. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r m i a P r e s s , Berkley, 1977. (Program developed a t the Heal t h Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y , UCLA, which i s sponsored by the NIH S p e c i a l Research Resources Grant RR3.) Le, C , & T e n i s c i , T. UBC:TRP ( T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package). Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: June, 1977. Nelson, L.R. Guide to Lertap Use and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Dunedin, New Zealand: U n i v e r s i t y of Otago, 1974. Nie, N., H u l l , C , Jenkins, J . , St i e n b r e n n e r , K., S Bent, D. SPSS, 2nd.Ed. ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ) . McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975. P a t t e r s o n , J . 6 Whitaker, R. UBC:C-GROUP ( H i e r a c r c h i c a l Grouping A n a l y s i s with O p t i o n a l Contingency C o n s t r a i n t ) . Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: June, 1977. Webb, B. UBC:FMT' (A Documentation Program). I n s t i t u t e o f Animal Resource Ecology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: 1976. 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography includes a number of references not c i t e d put related to the issues of the study. References c i t e d are indicated with * at the beginning of the reference. • Allen, T. J. Information needs and uses. In CA. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol.4). Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , Inc., 1969. Anderla, G. Information needs in 19 78.: a forecasting study, of information needs and resources. Paris, France: Organization f o r Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973. •Bath University of Technology. Information requirements of College of Education lecturers and schoolteachers. 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 049 775) •Bernal, J.D. S c i e n t i f i c information and i t s users. ASLIB Proceedings, 1960, J[2X 432-438. •Bernier, C L . Measurement of how well professional people keep up with t h e i r technical l i t e r a t u r e . Journal of the American Society for Information Science^ 1971, 22 292-293. •Borko, H. Determining user requirements f o r an information storage and r e t r i e v a l system: a systems approach. In Information systems workshop the designer .is r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and h i s methodology. Washington, D. C.: Sparton Books, 1962. •Borko, H. The analysis and design of information systems. In A.W. E l i a s (Ed.), Drexel Information Science Series^ 4X 121-132. Washington D . c T : Sparton Books, 1967. •Borko, H. Information science: what i s i t ? American Documentation, 1968, J9X 3-5. •Borko, H. 5 Bernier, C. I. Abstracting concepts and methods.. New York: Academic Press, 1975. •Bourne, C P . A review of tne methodology of information system design. In Information systems workshop the designer 1s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and his figthodoloqy^ Washington, D. C. : Sparton Books, 1962. • B r i t t a i n , J. M. Information and i t s users x a review with s p e c i a l references to the s o c i a l sciences. Bath: O r i e l Press Ltd .~l9707 100 •Chora ess, M.H. , Rittenhouse, C H . & Heald, B.C. D e c i s i o n processes and i n f o r m a t i o n needs i n e d u c a t i o n : a f i e l d survey. B e r k l e y : Far West Laboratory f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development, 1968. •Chorness, M.H., Rittenhouse, C H . 6 Heald, B.C. Use of r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l and d e c i s i o n processes a s s o c i a t e d with e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n : ^ A l i t e r a t u r e saryey. B e r k l e y : Far West Laboratory f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development, 1969. Coney, R., P l a s k e t t , V., Boggenbuck, fi. & Hood, P. E d u c a t i o n a l MS i f i f o g s a t i o n sy.st.em reguirementSi A task f o r c e report^. B e r k l e y : Far West Laboratory f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development, 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 022 441) •Crane, D. I n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses. In C. A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology^ ( V o l . 6 ) . Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , I n c . , 1971. •Cuadra, C. I n t r o d u c t i o n . In C A . Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology^ ( V o l . 1). Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , Inc., 1966. Debons, A. (Ed.) I n f o r m a t i o n science,, s e a r c h f o r i d e n t i t y . . New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1972. • E l i a s , A.W. (Ed.) Key papers i n i n f o r m a t i o n science.. Washington, D.C: The American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1971. F a i r t h o r n e , R.A. The morphology of " i n f o r m a t i o n flow." In T. S a r a c e v i c (Ed.), I n t r o d u c t i o n to i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e . New York: fi.R. Bowker Company, 1970. F e n i c h e l , C. (Ed.) Changing p a t t e r n s i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . . Washington, D.C: The American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1973. F r y , B.M. E v a l u a t i o n study of ERIC products and s e r v i c e s . . Summary volume f i n a l r e p o r t . Bloomington, In d i a n a : I n d i a n a UniversityT 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 060 922) G a r f i e l d , E. I n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and the i n f o r m a t i o n - c o n s c i o u s s o c i e t y . J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y of I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1971, 22 7*1-73. Sarvey, W.G. & G r i f f i t h , B.C. Studies of s o c i a l i n n o v a t i o n s i n s c i e n t i f i c communication i n psychology. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 21.x 1019-1035. 101 •Havelock, R.G. Dissgminatiqn and t r a n s l a t i o n rol.es i n educa t i o n and other f i e l d s : a comparative a n a l y s i s . Ann Arbor, Michigan: U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1967. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 015 535) •Havelock, R.G. Pla n n i n g f o r i n n o v a t i o n : a comparative study o f the l i t e r a t u r e on the dissemination*^ and u t i l i z a t i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: U n i v e r s i t y of" Michigan, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 029 1 71) Havelock, R.G. The u t i l i s a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and development. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l T_echnolo£y x 1971, 2 X 84-98. H e i l p r i n , L.B. On the i n f o r m a t i o n problem ahead. American Documentation, 1961, _12x 6-14. ~* H e i l p r i a , L.B. & Goodman, F.L. Analogy between i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l and e d u c a t i o n . American Documentation^ 1965, J_6X 163-169 H e i l p r i n , L.B., Markuson, B.E. & Goodman, F.L. (Eds.). Education f o r i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e . Washington, D.C: Spartan Books, 1965. H e i l p r i n , L. On access t o knowledge i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s and humanities from the viewpoint of c y b e r n e t i c s and i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e s . 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e s No. ED 075 046) •Herner, S. In f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g h a b i t s of workers i n pure and a p p l i e d s c i e n c e . I n d u s t r i a l and E n g i n e e r i n g C h e m i s t r y x 1 954, ±6j_ 228-236. •Hood, P.D. S B l a c k w e l l , L. The e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n market s t u d y L San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : Far West Labo r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development, 1976. Hood, P.D. How r e s e a r c h and development on e d u c a t i o n a l r o l e s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s can f a c i l i t a t e communication. J o u r n a l of Research and Development i n Edu c a t i o n , 1974. 6 X 96-113. Information r e t r i e v a l i n action.. C l e v e l a n d , Ohio: The Press o f Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Ifif2Il§tion systems workshop^ the d e s i g n e r ' s r e s p p n s i b i l i t y and h i s methodology,, Washington D.C: Spartan Books, 1962. 102 Kelman, H.C. Compliance, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ; three processes of a t t i t u d e change. J o u r n a l of C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n , 1958, 2 X 51-60. K e r t e s z , F. The I n f o r m a t i o n Center Concept. In A.W. E l i a s (Ed.) , Key papers i n i n f o r m a t i o n science.. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Information Company of America, 1971. *King, D.W. & Palmour, V.E. User behavior. In C. F e n i c h e l (Ed.), Changing p a t t e r n s i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . Washington D.C.: American S o c i e t y f o r Information S c i e n c e , 1974. Knox, W.T. E f f e c t i v e use of i n f o r m a t i o n . S c i e n c e f 1958, 1.33x 1274-1275. *Kochen, M. S t a b i l i t y i n the growth of knowledge. American Documentation 1969, 2 0 x 186-197. •Kochen, M. P r i n c i p l e s of i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l , Los Angeles: M e l v i l l e P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1974. ^ •Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B. & Masia, B. (Eds.), Taxonomy o f e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s : the a f f e c t i v e domain. New York: David MeKay, 1964. Kuehl, P.S. Marketing p e r s p e c t i v e s f o r " E R I C - l i k e " i n f o r m a t i o n systems. J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y of I n f o r m a t i o n Science 19 72 23 x 351-364. •Kugel, P. I f technology i s the answer, what i s the question? In C. F e n i c h e l (Ed.), Changing p a t t e r n s i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . Washington D.C. : American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1974. Leggate, P. Problems of the i n d i v i d u a l user. ASLIB 1971, 2 3 x 527-532. • L i c k l i d e r , J.C.R. A crux i n s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l communication. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 2 _ l x 1044-1051. L i n , N. & Garvey, W.D. Information needs and uses. In C.A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology, ( V o l . 1). Washington D . C . T American S o c i e t y f o r Information S c i e n c e , 1972. • L i n e , M.B. I n f o r m a t i o n reguirements i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s : some p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f L i b r a r i a n s h i p , 1969, I x 1-19. 103 •Line, M,:B. The i n f o r m a t i o n uses and needs of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s : an overview of INFfiOSS. ASLIB 1971, 23, 412-434,: Linsky, A,S. S t i m u l a t i n g responses t o mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : a review. P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 39 A 82-101. L i p e t z , B. I n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses. In C.A* Cuadra (Ed*), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n - s c i e n c e and technology,,. (Vol; 5), Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , I n c . , 1970. • L i p e t z , B. Information s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l . S c i e n t i f i c American Sept. 1966, 224-242. y •Martyn, J . I n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses. In C A . Cuadra (Ed,;), Annual review, of in.f orm.ation. s c i e n c e and technology^ ( V o l . 9), Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i q a , I n c * , 1974. •Menzel|H. Review of studj.es i n the flow of i n f o r m a t i o n among, s c i e n t i s t s . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. •Menzel, H. I n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses i n s c i e n c e and technology, In C A . Cuadra (Ed.) > Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology, (Vol: 4) ,1 Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , Inc., 1966. •Menzel, H. S c i e n t i f i c communication: f i v e , themes from s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h . American P s y c h o l o g i s t T 1966, 21^ 999- 1004, •Mikulecky, L. The development,,, f i e l d t e s t i n g ^ and i n i t i a l norminq of a secondary/adult l e v e l r eadinq a t t i t u d e measure t h a t i s b e h a v i o r a l l y o r i e n t e d and ""based on Krathwohl^s taxonomy o f the a f f e c t i v e domain. D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n : U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin. 1976, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Xerox U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , 1976. •Murdock, J.W. & L i s t o n , D.M, A g e n e r a l model of i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r . American Documentationj 1967 18^ 197-208; O'Connor, J . Some questions concerning " i n f o r m a t i o n need". American Documentation 1968, 19^ 200-203. • P a i s l e y , W.J. Information needs and uses. In C A ; Cuadra (Ed.) Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology, (Vol 3). Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , I n c * , 1968. 104 • P a i s l e y , W. Improving a f i e l d - b a s e d "ERIC l i k e " i n f o r m a t i o n system. J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r i n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1971, 2 2 x 399-408. • P a i s l e y , W. F i n a l t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t : : d e v e l o p i n g a s e n s i n g network f o r i n f o r m a t i o n needs i n education* S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . 1972,. •Parker, J . & P a i s l e y , W. Research f o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s a t the i n t e r f a c e o f the s c i e n t i s t and h i s i n f o r m a t i o n system. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 2VL 1061-1071. • P r i c e , D.J. De S. A c a l c u l u s of s c i e n c e * I n t e r n a t i o n a l Science and Technology. March, 1963, 37-43. •Rees, A.M. Information needs and p a t t e r n of usage. In Information r e t r i e v a l i n action.. C l e v e l a n d , Ohio: The Press o f Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Resnick A. & Hensley, C,B. The use of d i a r y and i n t e r v i e w t e c h n i g u e s i n e v a l u a t i n g a system f o r d i s s e m i n a t i n g t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . American Documentation^ 1962, 14 f 109-116. •Rittenhouse, C,H* Innovation problems and i n f o r m a t i o n needs o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s * Menlo Park, C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d Research I n s t i t u t e , 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No* ED 040 976) Salton> S. On the devlopment of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e * J o u r n a l o f the American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e ^ 1973, 24 1 218-220T • S a r a c e v i c , T. (Ed*) I n t r o d u c t i o n to i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e * New York: R.fi. Bowker Company, 1970. • S a r a c e v i c , T. S e l e c t e d r e s u l t s from an i n q u i r y i n t o t e s t i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l systems. J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r Information S c i e n c e , 1971, 22; 126-139. •Science C o u n c i l of Canada* Report #6. A p o l i c y f o r s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n , Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1969. r 105 Science C o u n c i l of Canada* Report #7 X The-role of the f e d e r a l government i n support of r e s e a r c h i n Canadian : u n i v e r s i t i e s i . Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1969. •Science C o u n c i l of Canada., S p e c i a l S£udy #8. S c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n Canada.. Part I I . Chapter 3 U n i v e r s i t i e s ^ Chapter 6. L i b r a r i e s . Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1 9 6 9 7 •Shera, J . H . Documentation and the o r g a n i z a t i o n of knowledge.. London: Crosby Lockwbod S Sons, L t d . , 1966.. •Shera, J,*H. The s o c i o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e * J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 19^1, 22 x 76-88; Short, E.C. Knowledge production and u t i l i z a t i o n i n , c u r r i c u l u m : a s p e c i a l case of the g e n e r a l phenomenon; Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1973, 4 3 x 237-301, Simonton, W., (Ed*), Information r e t r i e v a l today; Minneapolis, Minnesota: U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1963. Summers, E.G. E s t a b l i s h i n g the Canadian s t u d i e s e d u c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n system JCSEI5).: Planning p h a s e x p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t . Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: 1972* Summers, E.G. Information and b i b l i o g r a p h i c needs i n Canadian edu c a t i o n . 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No* ED 101 746) Summers, E.G. Canadian e d u c a t i o n a l i n f ormatign: Some p e r s p e c t i v e s and sources on system design,: Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: 1974a, (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No* ED 101 747) Summers, E.G. Instruments f o r a s s e s s i n g r e a d i n g a t t i t u d e s : a review of r e s e a r c h and b i b l i o g r a p h y , J o u r n a l of Reading Behavior, 1977, 9 X 137-165. •Torgerson, W.S. Theory and methods of s c a l i n g * New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. • T r i a n d i s , H,C. A t t i t u d e and a t t i t u d e change*. New York: John Wiley & Sons, I n c . , 1971. V i s o n h a l e r , J.F, & Moon, R.D. Information systems a p p l i c a t i o n s i n education; I n C A . Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology, ( V o l . 8). Chicago: Enc y c l o p a e d i a B r i t t a n i c a , Inc;, 1973, 106 Wall, E. A r a t i o n a l e f o r a t t a c k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n problems. American Documentation 1967, 18, 97-103. •Weinberg, A l v i n M. S c i e n t i f i c communication; In A.W. E l i a s , (Ed.), Key papers i n i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e ; P h i l a d e l p h i a : I n f o r m a t i o n Company of America, 1971. •Weisman, H. Information systems^ s e r v i c e s and c e n t e r s . New York: Becker and Hayes, Inc., 1972. Whittemore, B.J. & Yovic s , M.C. A g e n e r a l i z e d c o n c e p t u a l development f o r the a n a l y s i s and flow of i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f the American Society, f o r Info r m a t i o n Sgienee^ 1973, 24^ 221-231. Winn, V.A. A case study i n the problems of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i n a s o c i a l s c i e n c e f i e l d . The OSTI-SEA p r o j e c t . ASLIB 1972, 23, 76-88. •Wood, D.N. D i s c o v e r i n g the user and h i s i n f o r m a t i o n needs; In ASLIB Proceedings, 1969, 2 2 x 262-270. •Wood, D.N. Oser s t u d i e s : a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e from 1966- 70. ASLIB, 1972, 2 3 x 11-23. Wright, K. S o c i a l s c i e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o the E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Centers (ERIC); J o u r n a l o f the American Society, f o r I nformation S c i e n c e , 1973, 2 4 x 193-204. Ziraan, J.M. Information, communication, knowledge. In T. Sa r a c e v i c (Ed.), I n t r o d u c t i o n to i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e , New York: R.R. Bowker Co., 1970. Ziman, J.M,. P u b l i c knowledge, Cambridge at the U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968. APPENDIX A P i l o t Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF EDUCATORS P i l o t study June 1977 Introd uction T h i s i s a p i l o t study f o r a survey of the inf o r m a t i o n needs of educators. From t h i s study we hope to l e a r n about the present p r a c t i c e s of educators when th<?y look f o r answers to t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . In t h i s survey, " i n f o r a a t i o n " means spoken or w r i t t e n f a c t s or o p i n i o n s , and "sources" r e f e r s to people, p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l or pla c e s where i n f o r m a t i o n can be found. You w i l l n o t i c e that there i s no space provided f o r your name. A l l responses w i l l be anonymous. Thank you f o r completing t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Please keep the enclosed pen as a token of a p p r e c i a t i o n . J—LU SURVEY OF INFORMATION NEEDS OF EDUCATORS K P o s i t i o n : . I f y o u r work i n v o l v e s more t h a n one o f t h e s e p o s i t i o n s , p l e a s e c h e c k t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o m b i n a t i o n . r ] E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r 1 J i 1 I I J u n i o r o r s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r . . . . » 1 i 1 I P r i n c i p a l o r v i c e p r i n c i p a l *- r S u p p o r t p e r s o n i n a s c h o o l ( l i b r a r i a n , | c o u n s e l l o r , LAC t e a c h e r , e t c *- r D i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r , s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , ) o r a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t L r D i s t r i c t s u p p o r t p e r s o n ( c o n s u l t a n t , < s u p e r v i s o r , r e s e a r c h e r , e t c . ) *- As. Work a c t i v i t i e s : Needs f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e •fork one d o e s . To h e l p u s i d e n t i f y t h e q e n e r a l n a t u r e o f y o u r w o r k , p l e a s e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s . I f y o u a r e i n v o l v e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e l i s t , p l e a s e w r i t e a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f them on t h e l i n e p r o v i d e d . P l e a s e c h e c k t h e a p p r o p r i a t e co lumn t o i n d i c a t e t h e a p p r o x i m a t e p e r c e n t a g e o f t i m e you s p e n d a t e a c h o f the f o l l o w i n q a c t i v i t i e s . I l l of time spent i o r k a c t i v i t i e s none A. deter mining needs and/or e s t a b l i s h - i n g goals and o b j e c t i v e s , B. c u r r i c u l u m planning, d e v e l o p i n g , and implementing :.developing or s e l e c t i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r classroom use D.classroom teaching E . e v a l u a t i o n of personnel or programs F.personnel matters ( h i r i n g , s c h e d u l i n g n e g o t i a t i n g , a d m i n i s t e r i n g ) , j . f i n a n c i a l matters (budgets) a . f a c i l i t i e s ( p l a n n i n g , a c q u i r i n g , s c h e d u l i n g , maintaining ) I . l i a i s o n (with community, boards,or governments ) - J.consulting with or a d v i s i n g others K.conducting r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s L.support s e r v i c e s (planning, m a i n t a i n i n g , scheduling) ... M.preparing a r t i c l e s , speeches, r e p o r t s N . c o u n s e l l i n g students • . p r o v i d i n g i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g (planning or g i v i n g ) , P . l e g a l or l e g i s l a t i v e concerns ............ -i r Y 0- 10% — T T~ 10- 4 + 30- 60% + o v e r 60% 4- + i Q.others c 112 3i. Exg^rience.L Approximately how many years of p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l experience do you have? years. i i . Sense of i s o l a t i o n ^ How would you d e s c r i b e your degree of i s o l a t i o n from the i n f o r m a t i o n sources you would l i k e to use? (Please check one.) i I not i s o l a t e d ; I have ready access I I t o any source I need J •—' i somewhat i s o l a t e d ; I may have I I to spend a l i t t l e time and e f f o r t I I to f i n d what I want 1 J i 1 c o n s i d e r a b l y i s o l a t e d ; I sometimes ) | forego usinq i n f o r m a t i o n sources I | I- would l i k e to use ' J s e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d ; I I seldom get to sources I I would l i k e to use L- 113 E d u c a t i g r u Please check your highest earned degree. ( 1 I I High School * J I 1 I I Bachelor's ' — _ - J I ~ l Master's . . . « J I T I t Doctorate i J I j Other (please s p e c i f y ) Oj_ Information d issemi nation j_ How often do c o l l e a g u e s e i t h e r come to you f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n or do you gi v e such i n f o r m a t i o n to them? i 1 I > s e v e r a l times a day .-.......«- J T I at l e a s t once d a i l y • J i 1 I i about once a week - . L 1 i 1 I I about once a month .......... *- J i 1 ' 1 l e s s than once a month J 114 T-s. Resggnse to inforraation:. L i s t e d helow are f i f t e e n statements. Please respond by i n d i c a t i n g how much each statement i s l i k e you or u n l i k e you. For "very u n l i k e you" please c i r c l e the number 1. For "a l i t t l e l i k e you " p l e a s e c i r c l e number 2. For "moderatelv l i k e you" c i r c l e 3 . For "very l i k e you" c i r c l e 4. For example, i f you o f t e n cut out a r t i c l e s from newspapers and pass them on t o your c o l l l e a q u e s , you would l i k e l y c i r c l e 3 i n t h i s example^ You have read an a r t i c l e that w i l l be h e l p f u l to you i n your work. You would make an e f f o r t to share the i n f o r m a t i o n with your c o l l e a g u e s . very 1 2 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 1. You are l e a f i n g throuqh a magazine or newspaper and n o t i c e an a r t i c l e on education. You s t a r t to read the a r t i c l e . very 1 .2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 2 . C olleagues o f t e n come to you for i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l matters. very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 3 . You encourage other educators to read -journal a r t i c l e s or books on e d u c a t i o n a l matters. very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me H. When you are faced with an e d u c a t i o n a l problem, your f i r s t move i s to l o c a t e r e l e v a n t books or a r t i c l e s on the t o p i c . very 1 2 3 U very u n l i k e me , l i k e me 5. You are aware that there are s e v e r a l -journals t h a t c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about your l i n e of work. very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 6. Your p r i n c i p a l or s u p e r v i s o r o f f e r s you a copy of a three page a r t i c l e and suggests that i t may be of value to you. You decide to read i t . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 115 7. You read j o u r n a l s or books about qeneral e d u c a t i o n a l matters or about your own s p e c i a l t y f a i r l y often, ( s e v e r a l t i a e s a week). very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 3. You have w r i t t e n more than one a r t i c l e f o r a p r o f e s s i o n a l n e w s l e t t e r or j o u r n a l . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 9. You b e l i e v e that your own work would be improved i f you had access to b e t t e r sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e r a e l i k e B I G 10. You enjoy l e a r n i n g about new methods, m a t e r i a l s and techniques r e l a t e d to your work a c t i v i t i e s . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 11. You r a g u l a r l y read a s e c t i o n of a magazine or newspaper t h a t d e a l s - w i t h broad e d u c a t i o n a l matters or your s p e c i f i c areas of i n t e r e s t . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 12. You would o f f e r to research a t o p i c and put together a package of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r your c o l l e a g u e s . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e rae l i k e me 13. You would f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to accept e d u c a t i o n a l changes unless they were supported by f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 14. Your c o l l e a g u e s o f t e n send people who are l o o k i n g f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n to you. very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 15. You s u b s c r i b e to one or more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s i n your f i e l d of i n t e r e s t . very 1 2 3 4 very u n l i k e me l i k e me 116 Educators need i n f o r m a t i o n f o r raanv d i f f e r e n t purposes. We would l i k e you to i d e n t i f y , and rank i n order of importance, t2!2E 5>§J2£ purposes f o r seeking e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Please w r i t e your purposes on the c h a r t provided on the next p.3.22- 1° order to help you consider the broad range of a l t e r n a t i v e s , here i s a l i s t of s u g g e s t i o n s . I t i s not complete. You may choose from the l i s t , but p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to use some of your own that are not i n c l u d e d . SUGGESTIONS I seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the purpose of: g e t t i n g a general awareness of -gen e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s - trends and t h e o r i e s - l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s l e a r n i n g about new methods of - t e a c h i n g -managi nq - e v a l u a t i n g - m o t i v a t i n g - s c h e d u l i n q f i n d i n g s p e c i f i c f a c t s f o r -classroom use - w r i t i n g r e p o r t s or papers - d e c i s i o n making -problem s o l v i n g - c u r r i c u l u m development g e t t i n g "how-to" i n f o r m a t i o n on - t e a c h i n g methods - m a t e r i a l s development f i n d i n g new - m a t e r i a l s -sources - f a c i l i t i e s -expert, people 117 P l e a s e l i s t y o u r p u r p o s e s , ( a t l e a s t 3 b u t n o t more t h a n 8 ) , on t h e l i n e s p r o v i d e d b e l o w , and r a n k o r d e r them by w r i t i n g numbers i n t h e b o x e s . Most im p o r t a nt 1 n e x t most i m p o r t a n t .2 and so on. I s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f Rank i 1 A f-—4 B. I 1 C \—i D r—-I E \—i 7 \-—H G . . I—I. l ! ! H - L ' 118 i i . Sources: When you need e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e a r e many s o u r c e s you c a n go t o . P l e a s e r a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s i n t e r m s o f how o f t e n y c u u s e their, t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . C h e c k i n c o l u m n 1 i f you n e v e r use t h e s o u r c e . C h e c k i n c o l u m n 2 i f you r a r e l y use the s o u r c e . C h e c k i n c o l u m n 3 i f you s o m e t i m e s use t h s s o u r c e . C h e c k i n c o l u m n 4 i f you f r e q u e n t l y use t h e s o u r c e . I use t h i s s o u r c e S o u r c e r H + -I i I I I I 1 1. W o r k s h o p s , c o u r s e s , o r s e m i n a r s I -) -f- ^ ^ I I I I 2 . C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h c o l l e a g u e s - f- H f -) I I I I 3. A h s t r a c t s o r l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w s }- -f + l i t ! 4. D i s t r i c t o r s c h o o l l i b r a r y I 4 -I H I I I I 5 . Ed uca t i o n a l j o u r n a l s | H + H I I I I 6 . E x p e r t s o u t s i d e my s c h o o l I- + -j H I I I I 7 . B o o k s o r t e x t b o o k s \- -I -{ + I I I I 8. C o n v e n t i o n s or m e e t i n g s I -! -i H I I I I 9. P u b l i c o r u n i v e r s i t v l i b r a r y ^ -{ ^ 1 I I I I 10 . C o m p u t e r o r r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m s [• -j-——+ 1- I I I I 1 1 . B i b l i o g r a p h i e s o r b o o k l i s t s \ -I + 4- I I I I 1 2 . U n p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s . . . . . . . . . . |- -| + -J I I I I 13 . D i s s e r t a t i o n s o r t h e s e s I -i -) {- I I I I 1 4 . C u r r i c u l u r a m a t e r i a l s ( g u i d e s , m a n u a l s ) | -j -\ -i I I I I 1 5 . O t h e r s f -I + -I I I I I 16 ' J •* • 119 1 0 . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o u r c e s : D i f f e r e n t u s e r s have d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a f o r j u d q i n q i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s . P l e a s e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n q l i s t o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F o r e a c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o y o u . C h e c k c o l u m n 1 i f i t i s o f no i m p o r t a n c e . C h e c k c o l u m n 2 i f i t i s o f l i t t l e i m p o r t a n c e . C h e c k c o l u m n 3 i f i t i s g u i t e i m p o r t a n t . C h e c k c o l u m n U i f i t i s one of t h e most i m p o r t a n t . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c ? ; Importance to me |~1 T 2 I 3 T~4 ) y 4 f + ^ 1.1s near at hanri ard u s u a l l y j I I I 1 a v a i l a b l e I \ 4 4 •{ 2.Ts ^asy to use |- -i 4 H i 3.1s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , I I I I I r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e J -j -| 4 -) 14. Provides a v a r i e t v of viewpoints I 1 1 I I and/or means for d i s c u s s i o n f -) 4 1 ^ 5. Provides access without I I I I I i n v o l v i n g o t hers }- 4 f 4 -1 6. Lea<1s me to other sources I ^ 4 4 -J 7 . i s f r e e or i n e x p e n s i v e f 4 4 4 -j 8.1s complete, comprehensive 1 i I 1 I anl up-to-date . | -) ^ 4 ^ 9. Others |- 4 4 + ^ 1 0 . t 1 1 1 J 120 l i s . EEQblems IB. f i n d i n g and using, i n f o r m a t i o n ; . C e r t a i n p r o b l e m s e x i s t i n f i n d i n g and u s i n g i n f o r t s a t i o n . P l e a s e c o n s i d e r e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s and i n d i c a t e t h e i c i o u n t o f d i f f i c u l t y you have e x p e r i e n c e d f o r e a c h . I f you h a v e had no d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k i n c o l u m n 1. I f you have had very, l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k c o l u m n 2. I f you have had c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y , check c o l u m n 3. I f you have had e x t r e m e d i f f i c u l t y , check c o l u m n <4. ? r o b l e m s D i f f i c u l t y 1 . F i n d i n g s u i t a b l e s o u r c e s 2 . F i n d i n g u n d e r s t a n d a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n 3 . G e t t i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n q u i c k l y enough 4 . R e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s . 5 . G e t t i n g u p - t o - d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n 6 . U n d e r s t a n d i n g r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s 7 . F i n a n c i a l c o s t s 3 . F i n d i n g t i m e t o l o o k f o r i n f o r m a t i o n 9. U n d e r s t a n d i n g p r o c e d u r e s f o r g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m i n d e x e s , ERIC , e t c . 10. M a k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t o o t h e r s 1 1 . O t h e r s I T T 1 T I 1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | I H 1 -J -I I -h -j- 1 + + -I ^ I I I I H -1 I I -j- -i f f •+ + -I 12. i i 1 1 J 121 lis. I our ^ i d e a l ^ system:. Assuming u n r e s t r i c t e d f i n a n c i n g and t e c h n i c a l know-how, what would you c o n s i d e r an i d e a l way of seeking and g e t t i n q e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ? Thank you f o r responding t o t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y survey of i n f o r m a t i o n needs. To help us improve t h i s g u e s t i o n n a i r e , we would a p p r e c i a t e your comments on i t as a whole, or on any s p e c i f i c problems you had i n f i l l i n g i t out. Thanks. APPENDIX B F i n a l Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF EDUCATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s i s a survey of the i n f o r m a t i o n needs of educators; From t h i s study we hope to l e a r n about the present p r a c t i c e s of educators when they look f o r answers to t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . In t h i s survey, "INFORMATION^ means spoken or w r i t t e n f a c t s or o p i n i o n s , and ^SOURCES^ r e f e r s t o people, p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l or places where i n f o r m a t i o n can be found. You w i l l n o t i c e t h a t there i s no space provided f o r your name. A l l responses w i l l be anonymous. Thank you f o r completinq t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 125 SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF EDUCATORS I. DESCRIPTION OF THE USER* I i . P o s i t i o n : I f your work i n v o l v e s more than one of these p o s i t i o n s , p l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e combination. i T i l Elementary s c h o o l teacher ................... «- J i 1 I I J u n i o r or secondary high s c h o o l teacher —•. J Secondary s c h o o l department head .......... P r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ^elementary}. P r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l isecondary). ... r 1 1 i i —i i I I I i j i—•• 1 Support person i n an elementary s c h o o l I I ( l i b r a r i a n , c o u n s e l l o r , LAC teacher^ etc*) ..' • i - i Support person i n a secondary s c h o o l I I ( l i b r a r i a n , c o u n s e l l o r , LAC teacher, etc.) .. *— ' i—• 1 D i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r , (superintendent, I 1 o r a s s i s t a n t superintendent) .....*..*.......'— : • I T D i s t r i c t support person ( c o n s u l t a n t , j I s u p e r v i s o r , r e s e a r c h e r , etc*) ............... *~ ' i f you are a t e a c h e r t please i n d i c a t e the grade:or grades you are teaching t h i s term by checking a l l the a p p r o p r i a t e boxes* K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (IO 11 12 I T 1 T T -T -^1 1 T T — ' 1 T T" 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I _ J I I I a I 1 I i X L i I f you are a d i s t r i c t person, please i n d i c a t e the work a c t i v i t y which takes up t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n of your time;: i 1 A s s i s t i n g t e a c h e r s .......................... j ' i — 1 — i S u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s • A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s —-' I am employed i n the .................. s c h o o l : d i s t r i c t . 126 3 i Experience: Approximately how many years o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e do you have? ....... years i i i Sense of i s o l a t i o n How would you d e s c r i b e your degree o f i s o l a t i o n from the i n f o r m a t i o n sources you would l i k e t o use? Please check one. i 1 I I Not i s o l a t e d ; I have ready access j I t o any source I need ........................ J J i r — i Somewhat i s o l a t e d : I may have J I to spend a l i t t l e time and e f f o r t I I t o f i n d what I want t ' i 1 Con s i d e r a b l y i s o l a t e d : I sometimes I I forego using i n f o r m a t i o n sources I I I would l i k e t o use 1 1 i 1 S e r i o u s l y i s o l a t e d : I I I seldom get to sources I I I would l i k e to use ..... i , , ...,.......< - J 5,. L e v e l of educa t i o n Please check your h i g h e s t earned academic degree. a 1 I I High School o....................... «—j • i — i I I B a c h e l o r 1 s .................................. L— 1 • r r ^ 1 I I M ast er * s " 1 •: r ~ 1 I I Doctorate ......................................' J r ] Other (please s p e c i f y ) 1 127 6, Information d i s s e m i n a t i o n How o f t e n do c o l l e a g u e s e i t h e r come t o you f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o r do you g i v e such i n f o r m a t i o n to them? Less than once a month I I .................... 1 J i . , n I I I I i About once a month .......................... L 1 I I About once a week i i ' " ' " i 1 i I J I At l e a s t once d a i l y , . . . . . i i i — — i I I I I S e v e r a l times a day ......................... i - -i Is. A t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n : On the next two pages th e r e are f i f t e e n statements about i n f o r m a t i o n . Please respond by i n d i c a t i n g how much each statement i s l i k e you or u n l i k e you. F o r very u n l i k e you, please c i r c l e the:number 1. For a l i t t l e u n l i k e you, please c i r c l e number 2* For moderately l i k e you, c i r c l e 3. For very l i k e you, c i r c l e 4. For example, i f you o f t e n t e l l c o l l e a g u e s about i n t e r e s t i n g a r t i c l e s you have read, you would c i r c l e 3 i n t h i s example* You have read an , a r t i c l e t h a t w i l l be h e l p f u l t o you i n your work* You would make an e f f o r t t o share the i n f o r m a t i o n with your c o l l e a g u e s . Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 128 1. You are l e a f i n g through a magazine or newspaper and n o t i c e an a r t i c l e on education* You s t a r t t o read the a r t i c l e . Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 2. C o l l e a g u e s o f t e n come t o you f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l matters. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 3. . I f you have to make an important c u r r i c u l u m or classroom d e c i s i o n , your f i r s t step would be t o f i n d an expert person or some good p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l ( a r t i c l e s , books) to h e l p you make your d e c i s i o n . Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 4. You are aware t h a t there are s e v e r a l j o u r n a l s and books t h a t c o n t a i n a r t i c l e s and i n f o r m a t i o n about education i n general or about your s p e c i f i c f i e l d of work. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 5. a c o l l e a g u e you r e s p e c t o f f e r s you a copy of a three page a r t i c l e and suggest that you might f i n d i t h e l p f u l . You d e c i d e to read i t . Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 6. I f you found an a r t i c l e or book t h a t you f e l t would help one of your c o l l e a g u e s , you would recommend i t or o f f e r a copy to him or her. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 7. You have w r i t t e n a r t i c l e s or g i v e n workshops on e d u c a t i o n a l matters. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me like.me 1 129 8. You read j o u r n a l s or books about g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l matters or your own s u b j e c t area f a i r l y o f t e n , (at l e a s t two or three times a month) . Very 1 2 , 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 9. You look forward to a t t e n d i n g a workshop or h e a r i n g a speaker about an e d u c a t i o n a l t o p i c or problem t h a t i n t e r e s t s you. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 10; You r e g u l a r l y d i s c u s s e d u c a t i o n a l problems and i s s u e s with other educators. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 11. You s u b s c r i b e to two or more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s ; Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 12. You r e g u l a r l y read a s e c t i o n of a magazine or newspaper t h a t d e a l s with e d u c a t i o n a l matters; Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 13;.You would o f f e r t o research a t o p i c and put together a package of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r your c o l l e a g u e s . Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 14. You b e l i e v e t h a t your own work would be improved i f you could f i n d the r i g h t people t o t a l k t o or the r i g h t m a t e r i a l s t o read. Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 15. Your c o l l e a g u e s o f t e n send people who are l o o k i n g f o r i n f o r m a t i o n t o you; Very 1 2 3 4 Very u n l i k e me l i k e me 130 I I User i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g b e h a v i o r l i P u rposes f o r s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n Below i s a l i s t of f i f t e e n purposes f o r s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . FIRST: Check the a p p r o p r i a t e column t o i n d i c a t e how f r e q u e n t l y you seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each o f the purposes l i s t e d . Check column 1 i f you seldom o r never seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h a t purpose, Check column 2 i f you sometimes seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h a t purpose. Check column 3 i f i t i s a purpose f o r which you f r e q u e n t l y seek i n f o r m a t i o n . """ NEXT: For each of the purposes f o r which you marked coluign Ir p l e a s e l i s t t h e i r rank o r d e r of importance t o you. (1=most i m p o r t a n t , 2= n e x t most i m p o r t a n t , e t c * ) P l a c e t h e s e rank s c o r e s i n t h e column l a b e l l e d "RANK" Purposes Frequency T 1, T e a c h i n q t e c h n i q u e s ,. 2. F i n d i n q new m a t e r i a l s 3. F a c t s f o r c l a s s r o o m use 4. G e n e r a l awareness of t r e n d s , t h e o r i e s ........... ........ 5. M o t i v a t i o n 6. C u r r i c u l u m development ., 7. D e v e l o p i n q new m a t e r i a l s 8* E v a l u a t i o n ....... .... 9,i F i n d i n q new s o u r c e s , e x p e r t s ., 10. P e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l development 11. D e c i s i o n making and problem s o l v i n g 12. Classroom management ............ 13. W r i t i n g r e p o r t s , a r t i c l e s ....... 14. S t u d e n t s w i t h s p e c i a l problems ... 15. P u b l i c r e a c t i o n s and co n c e r n s . ,,.. L r - r ~ I I f- H i —I I — + I - H I H I — 1 I — ^ i -+- I +— r H 131 2. Sourcesi. when you need educational information, there are many sources you can go to. Please rate the following sources i n terms of how often you use them to obtain information. Check i n column 1 i f you never use t h i s source. Check i n column 2 i f you rarely use t h i s source. (once or twice a year.) Check i n column 3 i f you sometimes use t h i s source* (once or twice a month) . Check i n column 4 i f you use t h i s source freguently. (several times a week) . Source I use t h i s source 1, 2. 3. 4. Workshops, courses and seminars ,.. Conversations with colleagues ..... Notes, files,book i n my o f f i c e Abstracts, indexes, book l i s t s or bibliographies 5,: School or d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s 6, 7, Educational journals ..... Experts outside my school or d i s t r i c t .............. 8. Books or textbooks 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, Conventions or meetings Public or university l i b r a r i e s .............. Computer or r e t r i e v a l sy st em s ...... 3 . £. Research reports or dissertaions . Curriculum materials (guides,etc.) Other (please specify) .., .... y + + -j -j V - r — I 3 | 4 — I -• H H I - + -I I -I I I I I I 132 3.. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources. D i f f e r e n t users have d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a f o r j u d g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n sources. Please c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and f o r each o f them i n d i c a t e how important i t i s t o you. Check column 1 i f i t i s of no importance. Check column 2 i s i t i s on l i t t l e importance * Check column 3 i f i t i s q u i t e important. Check column 4 i f i t i s very important. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Importance t o me i T I 4 | 4 i I 1 I 2 T I 3 1. I s near at hand and u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e .. 2. I s easy to use 3. I s a u t h o r a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e ... 4. Provides a v a r i e t y of view point s or d i s c u s s i o n ...... 5, Provides access without i i n v o l v i n q o t hers ...,.». 6. Leads me to other sources 7. I s r e s p o n s i v e to my p a r t i c u l a r problem 8. Keeps me aware of new developments - 9. I s f r e e or inexpensive 10. Is complete, comprehensive, and up-to-date 11. Is l i k e l y t o have the i n f o r m a t i o n I want .,. 12. Others (please s p e c i f y ) —M- h -I 1 + -I 133 4. Problems i n f i n d i n g and using i n f o r m a t i o n C e r t a i n problems e x i s t i n f i n d i n g and using i n f o r m a t i o n * Please c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g problems and i n d i c a t e the amount of d i f f i c u l t y y_ou have experienced with each. I f you have had no problem, check i n column 1. I f you have had very l i t t l e problem, check i n column 2. I f you have had c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y , check i n 3. I f you have had extreme d i f f i c u l t y , check i n column 4. Problems 1. L o c a t i n g s u i t a b l e sources 2. Knowing how to use indexes, EfilC e t c . , ,. 3. G e t t i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n g u i c k l y enough 4. G e t t i n g up-to-date m a t e r i a l 5. Understanding r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s or s t a t i s t i c a l a nalyses 6* F i n a n c i a l c o s t s 7, Lack of q u a l i f i e d personnel t o help l o c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n 8. F i n d i n q time t o lo o k f o r or read i n f o r m a t i o n 9. Makinq i n f o r m a t i o n under standable t o o t h e r s 10, E e s o l v i n q d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s *..... D i f f i c u l t y f o r me* i I 1 r — I— I— I 2 H (- n -I i I 4 | i I -» 134 I I I Your " i d e a l " system- Assuming u n r e s t i c t e d f i n a n c i n g and t e c h n i c a l know-how, what would you c o n s i d e r an i d e a l way of seeking and g e t t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ? Thank you f o r your h e l p . 1 3 5 APPENDIX C D e f i n i t i o n s of Krathwohl's stages and the items r e p r e s e n t i n g each stage from the proposed f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 136 I . ATTENDING D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of r e c e i v i n g a phenomenon. The continuum extends from p a s s i v e awareness of the phenomenon through s e l f - d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n toward the s t i m u l i (Krathwohl, p.99). Items: 4, * You are aware t h a t there are s e v e r a l j o u r n a l s and books t h a t c o n t a i n a r t i c l e s and i n f o r m a t i o n about education i n general and about your s p e c i f i c f i e l d of work. I. You are l e a f i n g through a magazine or newspaper and n o t i c e an a r t i c l e on education* You s t a r t to read the a r t i c l e . 10, You r e g u l a r l y d i s c u s s e d u c a t i o n a l problems and i s s u e s with o t h e r educators* I I . .RESPONDING D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of responding to a phenomenon. The continuum extends from obedient acquiescence of response, through f r e e l y w i l l e d response, to emotional pleasure or s a t i s f a c t i o n i n response (Krathwohl, p.118). Items: 5. A c o l l e a g u e you r e s p e c t o f f e r s you a copy of a three.page a r t i c l e and suggests t h a t you might f i n d i t h e l p f u l . You decide to r ead i t . 12. You r e g u l a r l y read a s e c t i o n of a magazine or newspaper t h a t d e a l s with e d u c a t i o n a l matters. 9. You look forward t o a t t e n d i n g a workshop or h e a r i n g a speaker on an e d u c a t i o n a l t o p i c or problem t h a t i n t e r e s t s you. I I I . VALUING D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of value i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n * The continuum extends from a c c e p t i n g a phenomenon as being of v a l u e , through p r e f e r r i n q the phenomenon over other values, to open commitment to and e x t e n s i o n of the phenomenon as a value (Krathwohl, p.139- 40) . Items: 8. You read j o u r n a l s or books about qe n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l matters or your own s u b j e c t matter f a i l y o f t e n (at l e a s t two or t h r e e times a month) . 137 2. C o l l e a g u e s o f t e n come to you f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on e d u c a t i o n a l problems. 14* You b e l i e v e t h a t your own work, would be improved i f you c o u l d f i n d the r i g h t people to t a l k to or the r i g h t m a t e r i a l s to read,; IV. ORGANIZATION D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of value i n t e r a c t i o n . The continuum extends from c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the value i n r e l a t i o n s h i p with o t h r important values to o r g a n i z i n g the value as dominant and n e a r l y i n s t i n c t i v e i n a system of values (Krathwohl, p.154). Items: 3. I f you have to make an important c u r r i c u l u m or classroom d e c i s i o n , your f i r s t s tep would be to f i n d an expert person or some.good p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l ( a r t i c l e s , books) t o h e l p you make tha t d e c i s i o n . 13. You would o f f e r t o r e s e a r c h a t o p i c and put t o g e t h e r a package of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r your c o l l e a g u e s . 6. I f you found an a r t i c l e or book t h a t you f e e l would help one of your c o l l e a g u e s , you would recommend i t or o f f e r a copy to him or her. V. CHARACTERIZATION D e f i n i t i o n : Continuum of value i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , * The continuum extends from a g e n e r a l i z e d philosophy or s e t of b e l i e f s t h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y d i c t a t e a c t i o n to a complex of deeply h e l d p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s and a c t i o n s t h a t c l e a r l y and c e n t r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e the i n d i v i d u a l (Krathwohl, p. 165) . Items: 11. You s u b s c r i b e to two or more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s . 15. Your c o l l e a g u e s o f t e n send people who are l o o k i n g f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o you; 7. You have w r i t t e n a r t i c l e s or given workshops on e d u c a t i o n a l matters. APPENDIX D L e t t e r To Responent APPENDIX E L e t t e r To D i s t r i c t Superintendents APPENDIX F Postcard Remind APPENDIX G C o r r e l a t i o n s Between and Among User C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Sources Appendix G. 1 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s * Among User C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s C h a r a c t e r i s t i e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Experience 100 18 20 21 15 -26 08 08 2. I s o l a t i o n 100 12 14 06 -04 -02 03 3. Education 100 21 26 -33 19 -02 4. Dissemin* 100 41 -41 00 -09 5. A t t i t u d e 100 -36 02 -17 6. Pos,Con.1 100 -01 17 7. Pos.Con*2 100 00 8. Pos.Con,*3 100 * rounded to two s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s , decimals omitted. Appendix G.2 C o r r e l a t i o n s * Between Sources and User C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s * * Sources C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.Workshops 00 09 00 08 20 -13 -09 -03 2. C o n v e r s a t i o n s -04 02 03 19 15 -03 -09 -09 3 i F i l e s , o f f i c e -08 -04 03 06 14 -02 05 -05 4.Abstracts 03 05 06 15 24 -01 04 -08 5.Sch,Libr. -09 07 -14 02 05 16 -21 -01 6.Ed.Journals 15 09 17 27 48 -24 -03 -10 7.Experts 01 02 09 19 37 -20 -04 -09 8.Textbooks -03 02 -04 -05 05 19 07 -02 9,*Meetings -06 04 11 17 22 -21 -12 -06 10.Puh.Libr. -01 09 09 07 19 -03 -06 -07 11 *Computers 04 08 19 19 20 -20 05 -06 12*Research 13 06 16 25 37 -25 -01 -07 13.Curr.Mat. -03 04 -10 00 06 05 -21 11 * rounded to two s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s , decimals omitted;, ** user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s defined i n p r e v i o u s t a b l e * 146 Appendix G.3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s * Among Sources Sources 1 I. Workshops 100 08 2*Convers. 100 3 . O f f i c e 4 . A b s t r a c t s 5,. S c . L i b r a r y 6. Ed.Journals 7. Experts 8. Books 9. Meetings 10. P u b . l i b r a r y II. Computers 12;Research 13.C u r r . m a t e r i a l s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 05 02 07 14 27 06 48 01 69 13 11 21 11 16 08 14 13 13 03 02 08 15 100 29 17 13 05 31 00 11 03 08 13 100 31 27 18 20 02 28 24 31 11 100 14 00 26 08 25 07 09 26 100 23 09 22 19 21 37 11 100 04 25 20 24 31 02 100 ^07 16 02 06 23 100 12 13 21 12 100 30 32 11 100 45 05 100 45 100 * rounded to two s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s , decimals omitted; 147 APPENDIX H Multiple Begression Summary Tables for A l l Sources 148 Table H. 1 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 1: Workshops, Courses and Seminars V a r i a b l e E.2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o Sig* L e v e l Experience .0000 .0000 Education . 0000 .0000 .01 P o s i t i o n C. 1 .0185 .0185 19.0771 *01 C.2 .0249 ,0063 6.5711 .05 C.3 . 0249 .0000 I s o l a t i o n .0342 .0092 9.6469 .01 Dissemination . 0350 .0008 32.2042 A t t i t u d e . 0650 .0299 .01 Table H. 2 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 2: Conversation with Colleagues V a r i a b l e R.2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o S i g * L e v e l Experience ,0018 ,0018 Education .0025 .0007 P o s i t i o n ,01 C.2 .0095 .0069 7.0805 ;01 C.1 .0112 .0018 C.3 .0112 .0 000 Dissemination .0548 .0436 46.4790 .01 I s o l a t i o n .0549 .0001 A t t i t u d e .0661 ,0112 12,0885 .01 149 Table H. 3 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 3: Notes and F i l e s i n my O f f i c e V a r i a b l e R . 2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o S i g . L e v e l Experience . 0063 ,0063 6.4301 .05 Education .0083 .0020 P o s i t i o n C.2 .0106 .0023 C.3 .0127 .0021 C. 1 .0132 .0005 Dissemination .0181 .0049 5.0090 ,i05 I s o l a t i o n .0190 .0009 A t t i t u d e .0351 ,0161 16.7607 .01 Table H. 4 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 4: A b s t r a c t s , Indexes and B i b l i o g r a p h i e s V a r i a b l e R.2 Inc* R.2 F - r a t i o S i g . L e v e l Experience . 0008 .0008 Education . 0041 .0034 .01 P o s i t i o n C. 1 .0126 .0085 8.6841 .01 C.3 . 0164 .0038 3.8761 .05 C. 2 .0176 .0012 Dissemination . 0290 .0115 11.9003 ,01 I s o l a t i o n .0340 .0014 A t t i t u d e .0659 .0354 38.1298 ,01 150 Table H. 5 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 5: School or D i s t r i c t L i b r a r i e s V a r i a b l e R . 2 Inc. R . 2 F - r a t i o S i g ; L e v e l Experience . 0072 .0072 7. 3770 .01 Education .0226 .0153 15. 8821 A 01 P o s i t i o n .01 C.2 . 0584 .0358 38, 4288 L o i C. 1 .0748 .0165 17, 9973 .01 C.3 .0763 .0015 Dissemination . 0873 .0110 12. 1301 :01 I s o l a t i o n .o928 .0054 6. 0430 ,05 a t t i t u d e .1024 .0096 10. 7709 ,01 Table H. 6 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 6: E d u c a t i o n a l J o u r n a l s V a r i a b l e R. 2 Inc. R . 2 F - r a t i o Sig* L e v e l Experience . 0219 .0219 22. 6289 .01 Education .0424 .0205 21. 6830 .4 Oil P o s i t i o n .01 C. 1 .0731 .0307 33. 5219 .01 C.3 . 0799 .0068 7. 5071 .01 C*2 . 0832 .0033 3. 6190 .05 Dissemination . 1095 .0263 29. 7831 .01 I s o l a t i o n . 1107 .0012 a t t i t u d e .2497 .1390 186. 3006 ,01 151 Table H. V a r i a b l e M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 7 Experts o u t s i d e my School Experience Education P o s i t i o n C. 1 C.3 C.2 Disse m i n a t i o n I s o l a t i o n A t t i t u d e Inc. R.2 0002 0082 0437 0470 0491 0637 0637 1500 0002 ,0080 ,0355 .0033 .0021 ,0146 ,0000 .0863 F - r a t i o 37.5715 3.4756 15.6970 102.1092 S i g ; L e v e l .01 .01 .05 .01 . 01 Table H. 8 V a r i a b l e M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 8: Books and Textbooks Experience Education P o s i t i o n C. 1 C.2 C.3 D i s s e m i n a t i o n I s o l a t i o n A t t i t u d e R.2 0011 0021 0368 0415 0444 0450 ,0455 ,0600 Inc. fi.2 F - f a t i o .0011 .0011 .0346 .0047 .0029 .0006 .0005 .0145 36.3445 4.9873 15.5375 S i g ; l e v e l .01 .01 ,105 . 0 1 152 Table H. 9 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 9: Conventions, Meetings V a r i a b l e E. 2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o S i g ^ L e v e l Experience . 0036 .0036 3.6729 .05 Education .0132 . 0096 9.8622 .01 P o s i t i o n .01 C. 1 .0439 .0306 32.3849 .01 C. 2 .0453 .0014 Ci.3 .0460 .0007 Dissemination .0529 .0070 7.4044 .01 I s o l a t i o n .0532 .0003 A t t i t u d e .0705 .0173 18.7273 .01 Table H. 10 M u l t i p l e E e g r e s s i o h Summary Table f o r Source 10: P u b l i c or U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s V a r i a b l e E.2 Inc. fi.2 F - r a t i o S i g . L e v e l Experience . 0001 .0001 Education . 0078 .0077 7.8438 .01 P o s i t i o n C. 2 .0133 .0055 C.3 .0133 .0000 C. 1 .0133 .0000 I s o l a t i o n . 0201 .0068 7.0272 .01 Dissemination . 0219 :0018 A t t i t u d e .0545 .0321 34.6531 .01 153 Table H. 11 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source -11: Computer R e t r i e v a l V a r i a b l e R .2 Inc. R. 2 F - r a t i o S i g Experience .0013 .0013 Education . 0349 .0336 35.2272 i O i P o s i t i o n .01 C. 1 .0572 .0223 23.8814 .01 C. 2 .0580 .0008 C.3 .0587 .0007 Diss e m i n a t i o n . 0698 .0111 12;. 0632 *01 I s o l a t i o n .0734 .0036 3.8735 .05 A t t i t u d e . 0819 .0085 9.3555 .01 Table H. 12 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 12: Research Reports, D i s s e r t a t i o n s V a r i a b l e R .2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o S i g . L e v e l Experience .0180 .0180 18.5205 .01 Education . 0374 .0195 20.4690 .01 P o s i t i o n .01 C. 1 .0719 ,.0345 37.5611 .01 C.3 . 0734 .0015 C.2 .0748 .0014 Diss e m i n a t i o n .0965 .0217 24:2221 .01 I s o l a t i o n .0863 .0003 A t t i t u d e . 1598 .0629 75.3556 .01 154 Table H. 13 M u l t i p l e Regression Summary Table f o r Source 13: Curriculum M a t e r i a l s V a r i a b l e S.2 Inc. R.2 F - r a t i o S i g . L e v e l Experience . 0008 .0008 Education .0095 .0087 8.8958 i01 P o s i t i o n .01 C.2 . 0464 .0369 39.1605 i01 C.3 .0572 .0108 11.5402 .01 C. 1 .0572 .0000 I s o l a t i o n .0589 .0017 Dissemination .0601 .0011 A t t i t u d e . 0698 .0096 10.3872 .01 155 APPENDIX I Form J M i n i s t r y Of Education P r o v i n c e Of B r i t i s h Columbia 156 , POR CORRECTIONS DRAW A HEAVY LINE THROUGH THE EROR AND PRINT YOUR RESPONSE IN THE UNSHADED SPACE PROVIDED E*E READ INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK. DO NOT PRINT IN SHADED AREAS. FOR CORRECTIONS, DRAW A Ht»v SCHOOL NAME 1 SCHOOL O.ST.ICT..ME j T School 11 33 PAftT Ti*H TtAOtflS ONL* :, ol t u i | i ntf • i ON ONIY fcopr ol Drttfici mda •Vto-t H»an t U rh*f you 32 On* kftwj: o"W ! , 3 31 rmplovvd 4 • ;ONE ONLY 13 ^34 I N • B.C. I • In prvttnt lehoo* dtttrici • In •nettw actaol dmnct In a B C iw-ouW* ichoo- Out*** • C (C**c* and loao-v * Q4 $5 Ou'»'Q» 9 C public tcWool Wt'fm •rut* I ' Q 3 j c U " pn iB c -re*CN»c ciBTif'C*Tf SOT S*L*"> r i ' t o : . In B C • Qutude I C lehae*. «nd iwc'N tutew m *2i IK jiidti you te*cn : ii--.STP_C''ONS a-- sack 3143 '"O'e*" "* P*'"01** °* v 0 0 ' «hooi ***** 1 i -g Spec « E d " ' " ' " 0 " , -» 02 03 0 4 ' t f t ' 0 6 0 7 06 09 :Q " T ^ O - ? ' 35 1 — ' 1 : ! ' ' " i I I • INSTRUCTIONS 0" t iS : :i1 i 02 03 04 OS 06 ,QT 'Q8 0 9^01 11 ' 12 j?0 | 2 " ^ ^ L b-j-v Sut»-v.l"i« oMiudv pa"Od* C O L . " i f Aa-".".it>ltiO" and lupafyMO* 0< injlfuctujn T,m» 0' dui.as.abo** nnctudini NOT! Th. "̂i raaatiad Mr. «•) •*<* I- - plMHl 21 41 41 41 100' I °5 I Protw.O«* . 06 i Standard Taaeflrnfl I rcpnca . Leuer o< 11 Per m ,u^n M j 1̂ 1 it you an cr-it «7 KI 71 Indole rr» «.«»—. « C-uJ« le. CT»WT Crrpd.i .»«. U PiponiibtlitiM •! BOTH tdt I IO VII Cl**i yf tonructront on b*ct' j -,o' compter* tc K,o<J^»»rl»n d » W t « '«•«* *•*• 441 L 37; O1 ih.l CtMl 45 01 02 M ^ V t S t T c L A K E S BE.NG TAUGHT AT THE PRESENT T,ME S» m f T R O C T . O * . - (Mt itttndid »>cofxto»y of htfh itfvoel It 171 171 72 it: d^Mt (NOT In i d«« codn from L.« 3 on back 73 71 7« 12 CratM W— . „ i u » tm i raa ENGUSH WATHI 4( L _ •7__J L_ .1 _ . ! ' , . ... « 9 _ — L ill C!. L :—_ a __J_L-L 53 L !S, __L ;S : I si ; 1 I >i__LL_L I L 1 I 1 : ! 0<M* CotS* , 00 Krpn 00 Vltl . 08 ix -1 io x r II XI i — 12 XU \ 70 SOTO* 90 Muio , % at you< whool wwk ( S M now of b 74: 77 «0 13 Hemi Economic* MvMrti E«uc *rotr*mm*t *o< rVarincuta> Otc nt 13O0C 13M» 10»O0 H an Enftal. I cia« w « tawftti I f t n o * out o< a |/40 , 100 • 1§\ OQMMOI CONVI«S<tONI 1 « - 17% 1/T • 14% m 1 » " 11% It v»u W W * • eiaw 100% •rt your inmra «r,M .« 100 •yon rtv»««*t 1 .nd>catf umirt**iiv H 75 71 Ui.n« i * « 1 and 2 o« l»-ct. oi ih-i ̂ " ' " • " l i 0 ^ ' ^ T J ^"ic',0« US O. '..Mil ,n*ni(A you hava co«P*tl8 J O- u N i V f R S i T v D»U C0m<,>..« .« «ich .1 lull co U '--3 ».«.«-• 9 °" nou'H I' V«"' wtxaci •••• -« "»t on a«ha> hit !)'••»• P""' *o un\vJ*T»v e w m i l f * 'OO 2O0 and 30Oi amar coo. 31102 column and WW "3" >» -lumbar o< cau'Kicompiaiad co^r C o * 17 n I oanrfy (fiat rha .rTlWwjtion p-Mf » oomd*«« Sfnatur* pt Taacnar

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 7 0
Japan 3 0
United States 2 0
New Zealand 1 0
Germany 1 3
China 1 9
City Views Downloads
Unknown 6 3
Tokyo 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Burnaby 1 0
Kitchener 1 0
Mille-Isles 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items